Loading...
2007-413-Minutes for Meeting March 13,2007 Recorded 4/3/2007FICIAL NANCYDESCHUBLANKENSHIPTES COUNTY CLERKS Vj 1VV10J11 11111111111111111111111111111 111 04/03/2007 02:20:42 PM 2007-413 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) y If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244: Re-recorded to correct [give reason] previously recorded in Book or as Fee Number and Page , G ❑ Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ora MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2007 La Pine High School Auditorium, La Pine, Oregon Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tammy Baney. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson, Barbara Rich, Sandy Ringer, Sher Buckner, Todd Cleveland, Peter Gutowsky and Dan Haldeman of Community Development; Dan Peddycord, Health Department; Joe Studer, County Forester; Dave Morgan and Steve Hinkle, USGS.; Connie Thomas and Bonnie Baker, Commissioners' Office; and approximately six hundred citizens, including several representatives of the media. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss and to take public input relating to a proposed local rule regarding La Pine Groundwater and Wastewater Systems Issues. Chair Michael Daly opened the meeting at 6:10 p.m. He explained the meeting would start with an introduction of staff and a staff report; and to keep in mind that even if someone has heard some of the information previously, many people have not, and everyone needs to listen and learn, including the Commissioners. He then read the preliminary statement to the audience. (A copy is attached as Exhibit A.) He noted that there would not be enough time in the evening to let everyone testify, because the building needs to be vacated by 9:00 p.m., but the Board will be having at least one more hearing in La Pine. (Audience booing; out of control and shouting.) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 1 of 18 Pages After the audience quieted, in regard to the opening statement concerning bias, conflict of interest or prejudgment, all three Commissioners stated they had none. Commissioner Daly asked if there were any challenges from the audience in this regard. Citizen Tony Borba asked if what he read in the Bulletin is correct; observing that the article tried to make La Pine look bad. Commissioner Luke said that this is a legislative process; in a land use issue, the Commissioners can't talk to outside persons, but in legislative issues, the Commissioners can consider all input, letters, e-mails and other testimony. He said what is written in the Bulletin does not create bias for him, and he has no control over what the Bulletin publishes. Commissioner Daly stated that they all read newspapers, and get lots of e-mail messages, but try to keep an open mind. Commissioner Baney said that she doesn't think she has read all that has been written in the Bulletin. Citizen Bill Wells stated: I have been a La Pine resident for about seventeen years, and feel the challenge is to the Constitution of the United States. I fought for and was wounded for it. It makes citizens secure in all lands, property and papers. I challenge you, Commissioner Daly, as no one has a right without an overall vote to pull something like this on South County citizens. What about Redmond, Bend, Madras and the others. I live in La Pine and don't like you worth a darn. I will try to get every veteran in town to try to get you removed from office or beat this project. (Shouting, disorderly audience.) No other challenges were offered. Commissioner Daly said that the agenda states that staff will give a report and a little history of this issue, and then the audience will hear from the USGS scientists. Then there will be a cost comparison summary provided, information on public outreach, and an overview of the financial aspects. (Shouting and booing.) Commissioner Daly asked the audience to please be more professional and polite. (More shouting and booing.) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 2 of 18 Pages Commissioner Daly said that the meeting can't proceed if people won't act more professional, and that everyone needs to hear about the studies. There should be a form on each seat for people to write down their specific questions, which will be addressed later in the meeting as time allows. Unidentified woman: (To the crowd.) Please be polite and listen to the Commissioners and each other. Commissioner Daly stated that they will let Mr. Churchill speak, as he has some questions and seems to represent some of the other citizens, and has stated that he is not biased toward the issue at all and has some concerns to talk about that others may have as well. There will be another meeting next week, and possibly the following week if needed, to obtain public input. At this time, County staff was introduced. Commissioner Daly thanked everyone for coming, and encouraged everyone to remember why they are here, out of concern for the groundwater, which is the sole source of drinking water in southern Deschutes County. Barbara Rich gave a report on the environmental health aspect of the process, and said she had updated packets with the latest group of comments. (Exhibit B.) She then proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation, beginning with a history of the issue. (A copy is attached as Exhibits J & K.) (Audience shouting and chatter: We want our questions answered. We've heard all this before.) Commissioner Daly asked that staff be allowed to proceed and concentrate on this for everyone's benefit. An audience member asked about the DEQ applying nitrate data, and whether there is a choice of manufacturer, and how the manufacturers apply to do this work in Oregon. Ms. Rich asked that she be able to proceed with the presentation, which may answer some of the concerns and questions. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 3 of 18 Pages After Ms. Rich's portion, the presentation continued with the work done by the USGS. Steve Hinkle and Dave Morgan spoke about the studies that had been done and the results of those studies. They explained that the results of the studies have been published in reports and articles that have received extensive review. Paper copies and links to the reports are available. An audience member asked what nitrogen and nitrates are. Mr. Hinkle said that nitrogen is an element, and nitrate is one form of nitrogen. The EPA regulates it as a carcinogen and is concerned about it. The State also governs this issue. Nitrates are oxidized out of septic tank effluent, and then flow to the water table and the aquifer. He added that right now the water is good for the most part, relative to EPA standards. But with the fast growth in population and a smaller seasonal population, aging septic systems and increasing sources of nitrate contamination, it has become a big concern. He said that even if the nitrogen loading was stopped immediately, what is already there is moving towards the aquifer, wells and rivers. An audience member asked what nitrates do to people. Commissioner Luke replied that information is coming soon. (Audience shouting, booing, stating: we heard all this before.) Commissioner Daly said that there are some people in the audience who may have not heard this information previously, and to please be respectful. (Audience shouting, we want to talk, we've heard this before. Woman: they are feeding us this crap, this is their last ditch effort to make us do this.) Commissioner Daly asked that the meeting stay under control. (Audience shouting; same woman shouting, acting extremely rude.) Citizen Vic Russell asked the audience to please be quiet. He said he doesn't have enough information to make a good decision, and everyone needs more facts. Everyone needs to learn, and they all need to hear this. A decision won't be made tonight; please listen and be courteous. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 4 of 18 Pages Commissioner Daly asked that they all please listen and allow a little more time to get through the information. Steve Hinkle gave a summary of the scientific information. Dave Morgan then gave an overview of the hydrology portion, with maps of the water table and how the water flows and discharges. He explained how much research had been done and the results of that research, which began in 1960. The various scenarios examined over the years were explained. He said that there are tons of nitrates moving within the aquifer, and will remain there until getting to a waterway. It moves very slowly. When build-out occurs, the amount of nitrates will be substantially over what DEQ allows and deems acceptable. (An audience member shouted, people will decide not to come here.) (Shouting and chatter from audience.) Mr. Morgan explained that much depends on the ground water flows based on soil thickness and the number of homes. Using new systems only for new homes will not address the problem; there still needs to be reductions from existing homes. And some areas will need to reduce more than others. This type of pollution is not sustainable; eventually the drinking water won't be viable, and streams will be negatively impacted. (Applause from the audience.) At this time, Ms. Rich went over the cost comparisons and the range of costs based on the system and the location. When asked about a sewer system, she said it costs residents of the City of Bend $28,000 to connect, with a $22 monthly service fee. The average cost for Oregon Water Wonderland was $11,500. The cost of upgrading is much less. She detailed the number of meetings and hearings held over the past few years. Tom Anderson explained that the County is committed to solving the groundwater issue in order to protect the drinking water. The County has the means to generate a large amount of funds for retrofits, through grants and other sources. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 5 of 18 Pages The highest priority is to help those people with the least ability to pay. Demographics from the 2000 census were studied, and show that some people in La Pine are below the poverty line, while others are on a fixed income. To the extent possible, the County would like to help everyone, if there are enough funds available, including assistance with operations and maintenance. The County may be able to buy some systems in bulk to bring down the cost of each unit. He said a handout was provided at the entrance with more detail. The analysis began with a look at the average cost, from high to low, based on the number of systems needing to be retrofit. This amount came out to $65 million. After introducing the ages of the systems, it was determined that the newer ones might just require an add-on unit. This brought the amount down to about $43 million. If the proposed rule is adopted, there are a lot of variables depending on the site and the system. Much of the funding to assist the retrofits would come from the New Neighborhood area, of which there are 300 acres left uncommitted. There are other funding sources tied to this program. There is also grant money left over from a previous grant and an earmarked grant. The sum total of funds available is conservatively about $35 million, which is not that far off from the $43 million. (An unidentified man said, saying you can't get a discount is crap.) Mr. Anderson stated that the basic assistance is listed on the handout. An outright grant is the simplest, and would be based on those who are most in need. No repayment would be required. The second is the cost deferral program, which is similar to a local improvement district. Property is liened, and payments can be made if wanted, but there would be no repayment necessary until the property changes hands - A woman interrupted, shouting that it sounds like a done deal to her, that it has already been decided. Mr. Anderson replied that is just his semantics; no decision has been made and nothing has been adopted. Another program would be a more conventional type, with financing available at a low interest rate. Another alternative is possibly a bulk purchase of systems, with the savings to be passed on to the property owners. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 6 of 18 Pages The other issues are operations and maintenance. The Board has stated that if it passes, the County would be able to provide assistance; not necessarily through up- front costs but at the back end with certified maintenance providers for some properties and systems. The point is, assistance would be part of the package. A third party administrator, possibly as a non-profit entity, could oversee this process; the County would not administer the program. There could be incentives for residents to do the work earlier. The timing of repayment could be at the time of sale or remodel of the property. If there are leftover funds, a future Board would have to decide how to allocate it. Commissioner Daly asked if Mr. Churchill was in attendance, since he had specific questions. Jason Churchill of Orenco Systems then spoke. He stated: I was recently accused of having a direct economic benefit regarding the nitrate toxicity issue, since Orenco products have been approved for this use. Orenco would only benefit by adoption of a local rule. Therefore, I have no incentive to question as to whether the issue of nitrates is overblown. There is some common ground; there are a number of wells in the area that have high nitrate concentrations; they need to find out why and find a solution to the problem. An audience member shouted, don't just talk about technical details; what area has this problem? (The audience again became unruly at this point.) Commissioner Daly asked that the audience please give Mr. Churchill his time. Mr. Churchill said he is not questioning that nitrates accumulate. It is a complicated matter. He is questioning whether the equilibrium exaggerates the expected end point concentrations. The degree observed in wells may not reflect the aquifer or the local nitrate hot spots. He said that a fact sheet from the County Health Department was passed around regarding health effects. The most common health issue is the blue baby syndrome. He asked what this is based on, since his review says there is not a lot of conclusive evidence supporting this idea. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 7 of 18 Pages Dan Peddycord, Health Department Director addressed this question. He said: Okay, what is all the fuss about. This is a natural component in food. Health experts are more concerned about what is in the water, as this can be controlled. Nitrates are absorbed through the small intestine, and babies' systems are not equipped enough to handle it. This can happen to anyone, but babies and young children end up with higher acidity, as do people with gastric reflux disease when their system is too acidic. The flora isn't present in their system enough to convert the nitrates, which bind to hemoglobin so that oxygen doesn't get to tissues and organs. That's why blue babies look that way; they are slowly suffocating. There haven't been many deaths yet, primarily due to high EPA standards regarding nitrates. Is it wise to set a standard for drinking water? Yes. You need to get it out of the water. Mr. Churchill stated that in his opinion this is a theory and not a fact, and that a cause in drinking water may be because of bacteria or viruses due to fecal contamination, with the high nitrates being coincidental. Infants involved often have bacterial gastroenteritis. Mr. Peddycord said that in order for nitrates to bind to hemoglobin, there has to be nitrates present. This is not controversial in accepted medical literature. The State toxicologist says that the science Mr. Churchill talks about is edgy, and that the U.S. Center for Disease Control and World Health Organization do not recognize it as viable. Mr. Churchill said that a person from the Oregon Department of Human Services said that there are a number of flaws to the health agencies' statements. He said Mr. Peddycord must not be very familiar with the literature if he hasn't read Mr. Churchill's white paper. There is emerging theory about the sources of nitrates. (Audience member: Other people want to speak.) Commissioner Daly asked Mr. Churchill to get the rest of his information to the Board in writing. Dave Kanner then went through questions that were submitted; he said he sorted them according to how similar they were, and would read the ones with the most interest first. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 8 of 18 Pages A man shouted that he had a lot of questions to ask. A woman shouted that they will just answer the ones they want to. Another man shouted that they should answer her statement that this has already been decided. Commissioner Daly stated that they are trying to answer questions at this time, if everyone would please settle down. A man shouted that he heard an interview on the radio that sounded like they had already made up their minds. Commissioner Daly asked if people wanted to continue the meeting. The audience generally indicated "yes". Dave Kanner stated that several questions asked if this is a done deal, is this the best solution, if this meeting only for show. Commissioner Luke stated that he has been involved in the political process for fourteen years, and has attended a lot of hearings. He said they want to answer the questions, and will be back in a week to get more public input, and a third meeting if needed. (A man shouted that they want to talk.) Commissioner Luke asked that he please not do that. There are people at the meeting who want to learn. Commissioner Baney said that she is new to all of this, and that she can say three things. One of them is that 90% of this is over her head, and she's been studying documents for days. The money is a concern, and she would ask when, how, and will I have something to say about it. That's why they are here today. She said she understands the passion and concern. Another question is, are there alternatives. This can't be answered yet but will be. Commissioner Daly emphasized that his mind is not made up. It is a proposed rule, one that is being considered. (A woman shouted, you won't answer the question. You were on the radio and it sounded like you have your mind made up.) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 9 of 18 Pages (A man shouted, what are we here for. It's a waste of time) Commissioner Daly asked that people please submit questions to staff. Mr. Kanner stated that one question is whether the systems will be provided by one vendor, or if there will be time to consider others, since it is not a one size fits all situation. (A man shouted, I can answer that one, it's a bunch of crap.) Barbara Rich stated there are four systems; three are from companies and one is non-proprietary. There is no monopoly, and others are being reviewed by DEQ that could be added to the list. Mr. Kanner said one question asks about the nitrates from lawns and golf courses. Steve Gutowsky replied that golf courses are self-regulating, and are located in the northern part of the study area so are not a significant source of nitrates. Most people have desert-type landscaping so there is probably little fertilizer used. Changing these could reduce nitrates but the result would be negligible. Mr. Kanner stated that someone asked why the County allows growth in south County, and why, if the rule is not in effect, they had to install a special system for their new house. Mr. Anderson stated that growth is still allowed; there has been no moratorium or denial of development applications yet. That's a whole different decision to be made and affects private property rights. This could be an outcome if the area gets to the point where the DEQ steps in and takes over, establishing a management plan and doing what they feel is necessary. This has occurred in other parts of the state. The second part is why someone had to put in a new system. Last summer this requirement was put into place for new development as mandated by DEQ. Given what they were learning and knew, the County's job under State rules was to require the new systems on new development that was not already grandfathered in under a previous site approval. (A man shouted, why aren't the grandfathered ones up to standards yet.) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 10 of 18 Pages Mr. Kanner then said there were several questions about installing a sewer system. Barbara Rich explained that a cost comparison was done in 1997, and at that time, the cost was from $19,000 to $28,000 per lot. The cost would be much higher now. Sewer system connection costs in cities are significantly higher for existing systems. The proposed rule is for on-site systems since the range of costs would be significantly lower. (A woman shouted, why can't we vote on it. We should be able to vote on this.) Ms. Rich explained that State law does not allow sewer systems in unincorporated areas. State law would have to be changed. Commissioner Baney said she understands there would have to be a State exception. She then asked if there are grants available for the installation of sewer systems. Ms. Rich replied that there are no grant funds available for sewer systems anywhere in the nation anymore. The only help would possibly be low-interest loans. Mr. Kanner stated the next question was why they should upgrade if they are below the problem nitrate levels. Citizen Delbert Linn said he has lived in Deschutes County for many years, and runs a septic business. He said he has seen drainfields put in right and wrong, but that this can't be swept under the rug, as there is a problem. He asked about gray water systems. He said they have to be careful about band-aid fixes, which are expensive in the long run. Most of the people in the area are on fixed income or are retired. They want to get any financial help possible. He asked about the superfund for the cleanup of hazardous waste, if it gets that way. He suggested that everything be looked at, as there has to be an economical way for the folks in La Pine, and many moved there because housing is affordable. This needs to be approached in a many pronged thrust. He has a sand filter but they can lose their useful life, as can anything. Barbara Rich stated that they have to protect the existing water resource. Contamination is concentrated in the upper level, but will gradually move into wells, the aquifer and the rivers. By the time it is a superfund issue, it's too late. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 11 of 18 Pages (Someone shouted, what are Ms. Rich's credentials. How do we know she knows what she's talking about.) Ms. Rich replied gave an overview of her various degrees, including a masters degree in water resources management. Mr. Kanner stated that a question was why the reports have not been made available. Mr. Hinkle replied that they are available for inspection. The USGS has a policy regarding unreleased information; they put it through internal review and then release it to the public all at the same time. Three reports are already available, and others will be available after review in about two months, along with the model and data sets. Mr. Kanner said that someone asked whether the model was run with the red lots, and what was assumed and what effect did the red lots have on the model. Mr. Hinkle replied that the model was initially constructed without the red lots. The technical advisory process requested they be considered, so they were added. As a result, in general more systems in the area requires that others reduce even further. The capacity to handle the pollution doesn't increase. (Someone shouted, what are red lots?) Ms. Rich explained that the red lots have less than 24 inches of separation between the surface of the ground and water. There is a question as to whether these should be allowed to be developed in the future; there will be an extensive public process to address this particular issue. (A man shouted, everything I got off the computer was crap) Mr. Kanner said a comment was submitted that this should not be considered until all documents are available. Ms. Rich asked which report they are asking about, since the final draft has not yet been released by the EPA. The USGS has some reports available. The EPA report will be published in May. Mr. Kanner stated that a question is when will 50% of the wells in the study area have nitrates exceeding 7 ml per liter. Mr. Hinkle replied that he could find that information in his office work. In about 30 to 40 years, the shallow aquifer will be well over 10 ml per liter; this is not hypothetical, and has been thoroughly calibrated. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 12 of 18 Pages Mr. Kanner said the next comment was that since water flows north, what about the Klamath County systems. And systems in Ponderosa Pines could affect those properties east of there. Mr. Hinkle stated that northern Klamath County was including in the area studied, and loading from that area was considered. The simulation shows it flows towards the Little Deschutes or the Long Creek area. The nitrates don't necessarily flow north; they flow towards streams. Mr. Kanner said someone asked when or if the old septic systems not now in use need to be replaced. Mr. Landin said that if the system is not used, the sludge will stop moving out of the tanks and probably won't be a significant source of pollutants. Ms. Rich said that a survey of permit records found that about 350 systems that might have older, failing steel tanks are still out there. Mr. Kanner said the next question was how the model compares to the actual systems in place in La Pine. Mr. Hinkle stated that the period of time analyzed was between 1960 and 2000, and they used the concentrations found in the sampled wells, utilizing five-acre blocks about five feet thick. The model was not for individual homes, but for groups. They looked at the distribution and data, and the model simulated the distribution satisfactorily. They can't state what most individual wells have, but calculated the averages and the range of concentrations. A man asked what the ATT systems are, what effect they have, and do they match what the model shows, once they are in the ground. Ms. Rich replied that they tested a lot of systems in the La Pine demonstration project, and others have been tested in other parts of the County; this testing is all well documented. A man stated that the last data he saw shows that a lot of systems didn't meet expectations. Ms. Rich replied that the demonstration project tested a variety of systems, and they found some that were not acceptable. The DEQ does a good job of screening the systems in order to protect the homeowner. Mr. Kanner said there were a series of questions regarding the ammonia plumes and wells; and was nitrate tested at these sites and compared. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 13 of 18 Pages Mr. Hinkle stated that nitrogen is transformed into ammonia in the immediate vicinity, then is changed to nitrate. Some is deep in the aquifer from natural sources, and shallow parts of the basin may have some from organic matter and sediment. Ammonium is natural, but nitrates produced from it are not. Mr. Kanner said a question was submitted asking if global warming is responsible for any of this, and if the USGS has considered this in its findings. Mr. Hinkle replied that their studies do not account for anything having to do with global warming, especially since the studies were conducted over a long period of time. Mr. Kanner stated that a comment was made that nitrate levels found in the 1960's and 1970's were the same. Mr. Hinkle stated that none were sampled in the 1960's; some were in the 1980's in a few locations, but there weren't many people living in the area before then. In the mid-1990's there was a lot more testing done, and loading that started in the 1960's was found and tracked. Mr. Kanner said one question was why cluster systems have not been addressed. Ms. Rich stated that this was addressed in the previous survey. A cluster system is a large system that connects more than one lot. Public input was that they didn't want them, with the exception of Oregon Water Wonderland, who has since extended its system. A question was asked, why not drill deeper into the aquifer, maybe to 400 feet. Mr. Hinkle replied once you drill beyond a certain point, it may be an engineering solution but violates DEQ statute. The DEQ does not want the aquifer contaminated. Also, the nitrates will still discharge into the rivers, which leads to water quality problems over a wide area. Also, the deeper water doesn't taste as good since there is too much sulfur in it. In short, having deeper wells does not address the contamination of the shallow wells, rivers and aquifers. Commissioner Baney asked if this is the only county with this problem. If not, what solutions have been arrived at for others. Mr. Hinkle said that this is a problem in many areas. Unfortunately, La Pine has population density too low for a sewer system to be viable, but enough population to contaminate water sources. Other places have more rainfall, which lessens the impact of contaminates. Usually housing density must be greater to have a sewer system be possible. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 14 of 18 Pages Barbara Rich said that several areas are tied to onsite wastewater systems, including parts of Rhode Island that have an advanced system to protect the coastline; the same is true in Chesapeake Bay. The Florida Keys have significant nitrate problems as well. (Audience members began shouting; unintelligible.) Mr. Kanner said that one comment is that 55% of area homes belong to snowbirds or are vacation homes, and was this considered. Mr. Hinkle replied that they looked at records, and in the early 1980's the seasonal rate was 44%. The local postmaster and garbage collection service tells us in the 1990's this seasonal number is down to 20%. The model is calibrated through 1999, and is based only on what the aquifer can accept. Mr. Kanner said the next question was how long does it take nitrates to get to the river in the Wild River development. Mr. Hinkle replied that this area has a short flow path to the river. He can't be specific, but it could be ten years or less. That's where it will end up. Mr. Kanner then asked a question regarding how the system works. Ms. Rich said nitrogen goes through a transformation, starting as ammonia. When using a nitrogen reducing process, it is reduced to nitrogen gas. The atmosphere is about 79% nitrogen. A question was asked if the test wells were sealed with casing to below twenty feet. Mr. Hinkle said all of the test wells were. Mr. Kanner said a question was where are the test wells located, and what time of year were they tested. Ms. Rich replied that there were two sets of wells tested. One set was drinking water wells, and they were screened where drawn, an average of sixty feet down. The other set was about 200 shallow water quality monitoring wells, located in and around the systems being field-tested. They were monitored every month or two for a year, then every quarter for three years. The locations are in the USGS presentation; they were scattered around a wide area. A question was asked why a sewer system would not be less expensive in La Pine, since it is easier to dig one due to the lack of rocks. Ms. Rich said that the cost is based primarily on the distance. Homes in the cities are closer together; more distance makes installation more costly. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 15 of 18 Pages Mr. Kanner stated that someone asked what happens when an electrically powered system is subject to a power outage. Ms. Rich said she knows there can be power outages, but this also affects the water supply systems people have. A generator could handle both during an outage. Mr. Kanner stated that a question was asked about a cost benefit analysis, looking at alternatives versus a sewer system. Ms. Rich said that this was done in 1997, and the cost of a sewer system was not updated to the current value of the land and materials, as there did not seem to be an interest in a sewer due to the expense. They are updating this data as they get additional information. Commissioner Luke pointed out that the idea of a sewer system keeps coming up. The State won't allow one outside of urban areas. Some developers would like to put one in and some residents are interested. However, this is not a County decision; it is up to the State. Mr. Kanner said someone asked about nitrate reducing options on wells, nitrate filters on wells and nitrate absorbing products. Ms. Rich stated these are three distinct questions. Using nitrate filters speaks to digging deeper wells, but this doesn't protect the aquifer or the rivers. As to gray water systems such as those located north of Bend, the gray water is applied to large land areas; this is basically what sewer treatment plants do. This requires a lot of land, and the cost isn't known. Nitrogen reducing plants might work if there was a different climate, but most of them don't root well in the La Pine area. Mr. Kanner said a question was asked about the systems being maintained by homeowners. Ms. Rich replied that Oregon Rule sets this out; people have to be a certified maintenance provider, but a homeowner can go through the training process. This is a State rule. Mr. Kanner stated that a question was asked regarding those systems not requiring maintenance, and whether they are proprietary. Ms. Rich said this is a mix; some need more maintenance than others. Mr. Kanner stated that someone asked if there is national research addressing this problem. Ms. Rich replied that the national focus for research is for on-site systems. EPA has come to the realization that they can't afford to sewer the world, as many sewer systems already can't be properly maintained. So, the focus of their funding has been for on-site systems. In terms of the USGS study, it has been reviewed by experts nationally, which is a requirement of the work they do. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 16 of 18 Pages A woman said, everything seems to be based on this model. Ms. Rich replied that it is based on the national standard for this kind of work. Other hydrologists review the work to make sure it meets the national standard. A woman asked, why did we have to replace our system with a sand filter system. Ms. Rich said that they must have had a high water situation, and the 24" standard has to be maintained. Mr. Kanner said that someone asked what happens when there are freezing temperatures; and the Advantax system is only warranted for five years. Ms. Rich said that AS-20 systems were installed around the county, with nine in south County and forty or so elsewhere to test them in various environments. No issues were observed regarding freezing; they are designed that way. They have a five- year warranty, but the DEQ requires regular maintenance since they don't want to see catastrophic failures. They can last the life of the property if properly maintained. (Audience disruption and chatter) Mr. Kanner said a question was raised as to how long a sand filter will last. Ms. Rich replied that they are not designed to remove nitrogen, just bacteria. They start discharging nitrates right away. Mr. Kanner stated a person asked how the new systems would handle household cleaning products. Ms. Rich said that there were 49 systems monitored over three years. There are restrictions on certain household products no matter what system you use, even current systems. This is because they are all biologic systems and need organisms to work. If they are poisoned, this can negatively affect the function of any system. At this time, school district personnel reminded the group that they must leave the building, so Commissioner Daly advised the audience that the Commissioners and staff would be back at the school to meet again with the public at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 20. There could be a third meeting on March 27 if needed. The audience was reminded to get their questions to the Commissioners or staff via e-mail or in writing as soon as possible prior to the next meeting date so that their questions and concerns could be answered at the next meeting. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 17 of 18 Pages Being no further items to come before the Board, Chair Daly adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p. m. DATED this 13th Day of March 2007 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ichael M. aly, ?1air i isR.L ATTEST: Tammy 134ney, Cobinissioner Recording Secretary Attachments Exhibit A: Preliminary introductory statement Exhibit B: Recent comments received by Community Development Exhibit C: Letter from Orenco Systems regarding nitrates, dated March 13, 2007 Exhibit D: Comments from Keith and Diane Shefelberger, dated March 13, 2007 Exhibit E: Letter from Carl Jansen and Jake Keller regarding gray water systems Exhibit F: Nitrate health effects information sheet (Health Department) Exhibit G: Letter regarding nitrates, from the County Health Department Director and State Offices: Environmental Toxicology Section & Drinking Water Program within the Office of Environmental Public Health, Oregon Department of Human Services Exhibit H: Sign-in sheet (a few speakers; most who spoke out did not identify themselves) Exhibit I: Sample questionnaire sheet Exhibit J: PowerPoint presentation: agenda Exhibit K: USGS PowerPoint presentation Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Page 18 of 18 Pages PRELIMINARY STATEMENT FOR A LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS This is a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Deschutes County Code, Title 13, Public Services. This is a legislative matter, meaning the outcome of this process could change the Deschutes County Code by adding Chapter 13.14 regarding the use of nitrogen reducing onsite wastewater treatment systems to protect groundwater quality in south Deschutes County. The Board of County Commissioners will hear oral testimony, receive written testimony, and consider the testimony submitted at this hearing. The hearing is also being taped. The Commission has established March 20, 2007 as the date certain for continuation of this hearing. On that date, the Commission may either make a decision on this matter, continue the public hearing again to a date certain, or leave the written record open for a specified period of time. The hearing will be conducted in the following order: The staff will give a report on this issue. The Commission may direct initial questions to staff. We will then open the hearing to all present and ask people to present testimony at one of the tables or at the podium. You can also provide the commission with a copy of written testimony. (Due to the large number of persons wishing to testify, the Chair will limit verbal testimony to five minutes.) Questions to and from the chair may be entertained at any time during public testimony at the chair's discretion. Cross-examination of people testifying will not be allowed. However, if any person wishes ask a question of another person during that person's testimony, please direct your question to the chair after being recognized. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the person testifying. Prior to the commencement of the hearing any party may challenge the qualifications of any the Board of County Commissioners for bias, prejudgment or personal interest. This challenge must be documented with specific reasons supported by facts. Should any commission member be challenged, the member may disqualify him or herself, withdraw from the hearing or make a statement on the record of their capacity to hear and decide this issue. At this time, do any members of the Board of County Commissioners need to set forth any information that may be perceived as bias, prejudgment, or personal interest? I will accept any challenges from the public now. (Hearing none, I will open the public hearing). STAFF REP BOCC Public Hearing (LE PO RT March 13, 2007 BOCC Opening Statement - Legislative Hearing Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit Page 1 of 1 Barbara Rich From: Tom Anderson Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 1:03 PM To: 'Gayla' Cc: Board; Barbara Rich Subject: RE: Presentation at Commissioners' Public Meeting Gayla, Anyone present may testify before the Board at the public hearings. There may not be time for everyone to speak at the first hearing Tuesday night, so a second hearing is also scheduled the following Tuesday (3/20). More may be scheduled as necessary. Although given the numbers of folks who may wish to speak the Board may place a limit on speaking time, they may extend the time as needed for speakers who have particularly relevant testimony. Hopefully this addresses your concerns. Tom Anderson Director Deschutes County Community Development 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR. 97701 541/385-1704 541/385-1764 (fax) &m-Anderson@co.deschutes.or.us From: Gayla [maiIto: gayla@coinet.com] Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 10:15 AM To: Tom Anderson Cc: Board; Barbara Rich; Gayla Subject: Presentation at Commissioners' Public Meeting met with a gentleman named Glen Clark at last week's meeting. He informed me that he has called Barbara Rich regarding making a presentation at the public meeting in La Pine; however, he has not heard from her. Bonnie in the Commissioners' office informed me to send notice to you. Please schedule Mr. Clark. His phone # is 536- 2542 if you need to speak with him. C7 3/12/2007 BOCC Public Hearing March 13, 2007 Groundwate Issues - La Pine Exhibit _ Page 1 of 1 Barbara Rich From: JON SHARON VURIK [sjmvurik@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:06 AM To: Tammy Baney; Mike Daly; Dennis Luke; Barbara Rich; Tom Anderson Cc: PPPOA Subject: LaPine Community Mtg 3/13 Dear County Commissioners and CDD Please remember that the meeting coming up is OUR meeting. If the CDD had even begun to meet the public disclosure requirements of the EPA grant etc., they would not feel they have to give any presentation at OUR meeting. Our speakers are limited in time so if CDD is going to speak, they should be limited as well. Thank you for your consideration. Jon and Sharon Vurik Members of Ponderosa Pines Homeowners Assoc. • 3/12/2007 Page 1 of 1 Barbara Rich . W From': Barbara Rich Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 8:32 AM To: 'Gayla; Tom Anderson Cc: Board Subject: RE: Presentation at Commissioners' Public Meeting I received a voice mail from a person named Glen. I called him back on March 8, 2007 and left him a voice mail telling him that there would be opportunity to ask questions and testify on the 13th and 20th. I did not understand him to say that he wanted to make a presentation. Barbara J. Rich, REHS Deschutes County Env. Health 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97701 541-617-4713 FAX 541-385-1764 BarbaraR@co.deschutes.or.us www.deschutes.org/cdd/ use "Quick Links" to the Groundwater Protection Project • From: Gayla [mailto:gayla@coinet.com] Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 10:15 AM To: Tom Anderson Cc: Board; Barbara Rich; Gayla Subject: Presentation at Commissioners' Public Meeting I met with a gentleman named Glen Clark at last week's meeting. He informed me that he has called Barbara Rich regarding making a presentation at the public meeting in La Pine; however, he has not heard from her. Bonnie in the Commissioners' office informed me to send notice to you. Please schedule Mr. Clark. Hls phone # is 536- 2542 if you need to speak with him. • 3/12/2007 Page 1 of 2 Barbara Rich From: Tom Anderson Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 3:36 PM To: Barbara Rich Subject: FW: Meetings of March 13 and March 20th From: BARBARA KLINSKI [mailto:BKLINSKI98@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 3:16 PM To: Dennis Luke; mikeda@deschutes.or.us; Board; Mike Daly Cc: Tom Anderson Subject: Re: Meetings of March 13 and March 20th Mr. Daly, Mr. Luke and Ms Baney, Do you think that the people that have NOT attended any meetings by now, will attend these? From what I've seen, it's the same people that continue to attend any and all meetings. There are a number of elderly people that may be figuring that they won't even be alive in 10 years. I've heard some make this comment. How about a show of hands at the start of the meeting to see IF there are any who haven't heard the scientific information? .Thank you, Barb Klinski Original Message From: Mike Daly To: BARBARA KLINSKI ; Dennis Luke ; mikeda deschutes.or.us ; Board Cc: Tom Anderson Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:33 PM Subject: RE: Meetings of March 13 and March 20th Barbara, The public hearing on March 13th will begin with the scientific information gathered during the past 6 or 7 years and Staff Comments. I know some of you have already heard from our staff and do not want to sit through it again, However there are at last count 6400 septic systems in the Lapine area and each one of: them has a family behind it. The majority of the folks in Lapine have not had the opportunity to hear this information. We want them to have that opportunity and have their questions answered. We do not believe we will have time to answer all of the questions at the first meeting, that is why we will have two, and maybe a third if needed. Please bear with us as we have to serve all of the people in South County, not just a few. I will be running the meeting as Chair of the Commission, and we will proceed as fast as we possibly can. Thank you. I Michael M. Daly Deschutes County Commissioner •1300 NW Wall St., Ste. 200 Bend, Or. 97701 541-388-6569 Cell 541-948-7591 3/12/2007 Page 2 of 2 • Fax 541-385-3202 • From: BARBARA KLINSKI [mailto:BKLINSKI98@msn.com] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 10:24 AM To: Dennis Luke; mikeda@deschutes.or.us; Board Subject: Meetings of March 13 and March 20th To all Deschutes County Commissioners: Are you going to limit the time the County has to state their, case, so as to give the community all the time we need to have OUR questions addressed? The majority of residents already have heard their information and want you to listen to US now. Thank you, Ron and Barb Klinski Ponderosa Pines 3/12/2007 Barbara Rich om: Tom Anderson nt: 0 Friday, March 09, 2007 3:23 PM 00 : Barbara Rich Subject: FW: nitrates -----Original Message----- From: Tammy Baney Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 3:17 PM To: 'MIKE& GAIL WYNN'; Board Cc: Board; Tom Anderson; Dave Kanner Subject: RE: nitrates Hi Mike and Gail- Thank you for your email; we will add your comments to the record. In answer to your questions; yes, we will be having a reports outside of questions and testimony. This is an important component as not all of the residents in South County have had an opportunity to hear this information. We are striving to keep the technical information short to allow for more questions and testimony. I look forward to seeing you on the 13th. In Partnership, Tammy Baney Deschutes County Commissioner Office: 541 388-6567 Cell: 541 419-2233 Original Message om: MIKE& GAIL WYNN [mailto:scoot2@bendnet.com] ent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 11:22 AM To: Board Cc: Board Subject: nitrates Original Message From: "Mail Delivery System" <Mailer-Daemon@mail.rio.com> To: <scoot2@bendnet.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 5:48 PM Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender > This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. > A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its > recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: > board@co.dechutes.or.us > Unrouteable address > board @co.dech utes. or. us > Unrouteable address > This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. > Return-path: <scoot2@bendnet.com> 4 eceived: from [66.178.165.156] (helo=user) Ky mail.rio.com with smtp id 1 HP7kD-00OOmw-V8; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 > 17:48:40 -0800 > Message-ID: <001 a01 c76123$e50fdc40$9ca5b242@user> > From: "MIKE& GAIL WYNN" <scoot2@bendnet.com> > To: "tammy baney" <board@co.dechutes.or.us> > Cc: "tammy baney" <board@co.dechutes.or.us> > Subject: nitrates, south county • > Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:48:37 -0800 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary= =_NextPart_000_0017_01C760EO.D5C9C720" > X-Priority: 3 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > =_NextPart_000_0017_01 C760EO.D5C9C720 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > miss baney, I understand that the county commissioners are coming to = > La Pine on > the 13th. Are you all planing to bring Miss Rich,Tom Anderson, and their = > people with > you? We in La Pine have heard their position on this nitrate matter at = > several meetings > with them and I feel that this meeting is for you the cty. _ > commissioners and us, the=20 > residents to express their feelings and explore other options. Not = > nessary the options > of Mr. Anderson and his group. I for one do not want to listen to them = > state again and again that their options are the only options we have, _ • > and this Home Rule is to be=20 > implamented right away. There are a lot of questions that need = > answering, Golf courses, > R.V. parks, State Parks, two or more houses per septic system, metal = > tanks that are=20 > leaking, (they are over 30 years old) cluster systems, and many more = > questions that need=20 > answers. Please have an open mind when you come down because a lot of = > the people > here have not speaking ability that you and the others have. > Mike Wynn, La Pine resident > 541-536-7397 > =_NextPart_000_0017_01 C760EO.D5C9C720 > Content-Type: text/html; > charset="iso-8859-1 " > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3CHDTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> > <HTML><HEAD> > <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; _ > charset=3Diso-8859-1 > <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=3DGENERATOR> > <STYLE></STYLE> > </HEAD> > <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> > <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; miss baney, I = > understand that=20 • > the county&nbsp;commissioners are coming to La Pine on</FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>the 13th. Are you all planing to bring = > Miss=20 > Rich,Tom Anderson, and their people with</FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>you?&nbsp; We in La Pine have heard = > their position=20 > on this nitrate matter at several meetings</FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>with them and I feel that this meeting = for=20 *Ysou&nbsp; the cty. commissioners and us, the </FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>residents&nbsp;to express their = > feelings and=20 > explore other options. Not nessary the options</FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>of Mr. Anderson and his group. I for = > one do not=20 > want to listen to them state again and again that their options are the = > only=20 > options we have, and this Home Rule is to be </FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>implamented right away. There are a lot = > of=20 > questions that need answering, Golf courses,</FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>R.V. parks, State Parks, two or more = > houses per=20 > septic system, metal tanks that are </FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>leaking, (they are over 30 years old) _ > cluster=20 > systems, and many more questions that need </FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>answers. Please have an open mind when = > you come=20 > down because a lot of the people</FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>here have not speaking ability that you = > and the=20 > others have.</FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> > <DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20 size=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbs= ;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp= &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;= > &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20 > Mike Wynn, La Pine resident</FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20 > size=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbs= > p;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp= > ;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;= > &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20 > 541-536-7397&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML> > NextPart 000 0017 01 C760EO.D5C9C720-- 0 Pagel of 3 Barbara Rich .From: Tom Anderson Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 4:24 PM To: Barbara Rich Subject: FW: Local Rule Hearing 13 March 2007 From: Tammy Baney Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 4:10 PM To: 'JERRY CRISS'; Board Cc: Dave Kanner; Tom Anderson Subject: RE: Local Rule Hearing 13 March 2007 Hi Jerry- Thank you for your email; your comments have been added to the record. I feel that it is important to point out that this is a meeting for both the Commissioners and the residents of South County. We will be limiting the reports as best we can as we want to hear from as many citizens as possible. Please know that we will be having a meeting on the 20th as well and possibly a third if necessary. Again, thank you for sharing your concerns; they are important to me. • Partnership, Tammy Baney Deschutes County Commissioner Office: 541 388-6567 Cell: 541 419-2233 From: JERRY CRISS [mailto:tlfly44@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 5:01 PM To: Board Subject: Local Rule Hearing 13 March 2007 Mr. and Madam Commissioners, My name is Jerry Criss and as with my brother Ed Criss, we are full time residents of the South County. By now you probably have heard of my brother well now you are going to hear about me. If you believe my brother is a pain you have not seen anything like what I am like. I am a retired Pipefitter of 35 years and a retired Stationary Engineer of 7 years. In that time I have read technical reports and data sheets until my eyes were crossed, and understood every word and figure. I have been involved with issues that your staff even with their knowledge and education would be lost for quite a while. I have been in meetings and arbitrations with building owners, lawyers, engineers and/or contractors who cuff links are worth more this counties budget and toppled many of them. Because they either did not have their facts together and/or they were trying to hide something and/or were lying. The BS your staff is trying sell to us stinks of something greater than just a groundwater issue, not because of the science, but because of the • continued lies and/or half truths being told by your staff. You will see and hear evidence to that statement on the 13th. That is what this email is really about, as a member of a well organized group here in South 3/12/2007 Page 2 of 3 Y County, we do not want to hear any more testimony from your staff, they have had your ears for over 4 years and now it is time to hear form us. You are going to decide whether or not to put the residents of South County into financial peril, and you need to hear from us. We are not on board with this as Ms. Morrow would have you and the EPA believe. We are not willing to sit and listen t the staff any longer, Tom Anderson wants to just use up the time with more of the same noise and we have heard enough, he says that he needs time to inform residents who might be hearing of this issue for the first time to hear their side, well if there truly was a proper public process the staff would not have that problem, this is our Hearing and our time to be heard, if you bring the staff here to be heard, I do not believe the residents of the South County are going to stay and listen. If you truly are interested in what we have to say then let the hearing do that, do not under estimate the testimony you are going hear, yes there will be many who will be emotional about how they can't afford it and how can you do this us. But some of what you hear is testimony that your staff does not want you to hear, hard evidence that they are not fully ready to implement the Local Rule and proof of some of the lies they have been telling from the beginning of their so called public process. We are educated enough to understand this issue unlike page 4-37 of the final report implies and we want to be heard and we want questions answered. If the staff wants to be heard than limit their time just like you are doing to the residents of the South County who intend on speaking, if you really want to see the staff get nervous have them ready to answer questions from the audience, not just though notes written on a card. I know that is asking a lot but you are asking a lot of us. The questions will give you a real view of what we see as the problem, they have not convinced us there is going to be a real problem in 30 - 50 years. There are too many assumptions and the lack of real time variables put into the Predictive Model and that does not make sense to those of us who have been reading over the mounds of data and reports. There again is something more to this than just water quality and you are being put on notice that we will find out what it is. You know the old adage of do not bring me a problem without also bringing some solution. Well here are some possible solutions to the so called problem. This is a start of a possible Local Rule.• 1 It is required that all septic systems be inspected and tested by a certified testing agency and certified to be legal under present County codes, and those results reported to the County. 2 It is required that all drinking wells be tested for nitrates by a certified testing agency and certified to be legal under present County Codes, and the results reported to the County. 3 There be a 2 year period in which these items are to be completed by all residents of the South County. 4 Any discrepancies must be rectified within one year of the Counties notice to do so. That could mean repair of or replacement of present septic systems. The redrilling of some wells to get them deeper or move them further away from a septic drain field. 5 Testing of the drinking wells for nitrates to be done again in 2 years. 6 Possible retesting of some of the test wells used in the study during the same period. Testing the septic systems accomplishes many things, it gets the faulty septic systems repaired or replaced and it takes out the possibility of faulty septic systems influencing the nitrate loading model. Testing of the actual drinking wells gets clean water into every home here in the South County and gives us a reading of the nitrate levels. Testing of the wells used in the study gets a reading of where we are since the last testing in 2004. The retesting after 2 years gives us another reading of the nitrate levels. The best thing about this programs approach is that most of the cost to the County is administrative except for testing of the original test wells, the actual costs of the rest of the testing is on the South County residents. I am sure they are willing to accept that responsibility. During this time, there can be a real citizens group established to work with the staff and you, to test the Optimization Model with real life variables rather than run variables that only have one outcome and if at that time the out come is that we have a real problem then we can deal with that. Plus you would have established a real citizens group who in turn would have started a real public process. At the same time the County can get more nitrate reducing systems certified and/or established that cluster systems might be a more final alternative and they will have time to get real financial help together that will be of benefit to the residents of the South 3/12/2007 Page 3 of 3 County. These options are not going to be be received well by the staff because they are in a hurry to get this done before the June 30 deadline and other deadlines that we haven't found yet. But • they are away to gain time and that is something we do have, after all the nitrate problem is really not going to be an issue for at least 20 years, just quoting your staff. Thanks for your time, Jerry Criss • • 3/12/2007 Page 1 of 2 Barbara Rich From: Todd Cleveland Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:01 AM To: 'Neal Henderson' Cc: Barbara Rich Subject: RE: Follow up From: Neal Henderson [mailto:easymca@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:10 AM To: Todd Cleveland Subject: Follow up Neal, My responses below are in blue. I'm sure that we'll see you there tomorrow evening. Thanks for your interest, Todd Todd, Ohanks for talking with me yeaterday re my concerns about the groundwater protection rule for south county. I would like to confirm parts of the converstaion. First, the TAC committee was not part of the public process, it was solely concerned with the TDC program. All TAC committees are public and part of the public process. This particular TAC was convened to deal with the TDC program, but provided significant input on the local rule concepts. Second, the TDC, now PRC, program does not have sufficient funds to provide a $3750 rebate to all of the 6400 homeowners affected by the 'rule'. Further, the rebate program is solely at the discretion of the developer and can be changed at any time. It would be best to refer to the TDC code that includes the PRC additions. The rebate is up to the developer but they may also pay into the partnership fund. Third, that the county has identified other sources of potential funding to assist homeowners with the retrofits, but no decision has been made on how those funds would be used. I would recommend that you read the staff report connected to the proposed rule. See page 16. urth, the county staff has approved, so far, three systems from Orenco and Consolidated, and a eneric recirc. gravel filter as the only systems which may be used for the retrofits. There are no recirc. gravel filters in 3/12/2007 Page 2 of 2 residential use in south county, thus the county has no experience with them. The State DEQ approves new Alternative Treatment Technologies. Deschutes County categorizes • these approved systems based on third party data on nitrogen reduction ability. If a system is approved as an ATT but not listed as a nitrogen reducing technology it is because either no data is available or has not been provided regarding it's nitrogen reducing ability. Recirculating Gravel Filters (RGF's) were approved for residential use in the 2005 rule revision. After inquiring, I could find no one that knew of a residential application in the state. There are many installed elsewhere in the nation. County staff has seen them installed on commercial facilities under a WPCF permit with the DEQ. Fifth, that continued monitoring of nitrates in the groundwater, should be done every decade, as the nitrates move very slowly. A longer time scale is needed for an effective monitoring program because the nitrates associated with development of onsite systems is present in discrete plumes in the younger water in the upper portion of the aquifer. Sixth, that the county has no influence with the DEQ and will not assist in 'encouraging' the DEQ to approve proven and cost effective systems from other manufacturers. As I told you in our phone conversation, we are working under existing rules and Deschutes County has offered to assist in any way possible to encourage and accelerate the approval of new technologies. However, the State can only review applications from manufacturers wishing to be listed as an ATT in Oregon. Also, the listing or approval of a technology does not make it realisticall available to the consumer. Following listing by the DEQ, there is a need for a distribution network for the product. Establishing that distribution network is beyond the control of any government entity. Thanks Neal Henderson • 3/12/2007 11, AR 1 2 2n,u7 • Deschutes County Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, Oregon Attn: Barbara Rich March 13, 2007 ^04 cc We are responding to the proposed Local Rule for South Deschutes County. Deschutes County lists some systems that would be acceptable for use to reduce nitrates. There are at least 8 systems available for this supposed future problem including a Community System for individual developments, yet you deny homeowners this option due to zoning regulations and future zoning regulations. This is unacceptable! If homeowners have to spend $8,000 to $18,000, they should have the right to choose which way their housing development (new & old) could best provide for the homeowners. The studies on the nitrates should be made available to all homeowners in the South Deschutes County including the LaPine Area. The people of LaPine are not the country bumpkins you seem to believe us to be. We are quite capable of understanding potential problems and solutions, but we find it hard to form an opinion when only supplied with the minimal information you choose to disseminate. • We need to see the actual case studies on nitrates and their alleged health risks. We need to see the actual case studies on the solutions for removing nitrates. You have devalued all the properties in the LaPine area and South Deschutes County by requiring an expensive system for each home that not only adds an additional and outrageous cost but also a yearly maintenance and re-inspection fee and transfer fee if property is sold. As public officials working for the people of LaPine Community, it is your sole responsibility to work for the people of LaPine and South Deschutes County, not the government. All the materials on this subject you have used to determine the solutions you arrived at need to be made available to the public. It is also your responsibility to make sure that all systems to remove nitrates be recommended and approved, not just a select few. Also, pollution reduction credits should be available to the property owners and not be transferable to developers for the County pet projects. Please note our total objection to this Local Rule. Sincerely, Robert & Jill Liberty Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 6:16 PM To: Barbara Rich Subject: FW: Local Rule Hearing 13 March 2007 From: JERRY CRISS [mailto:tlfly44@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 4:16 PM To: Board; Tammy Baney; mikeda@deschutes.or.us; Dennis Luke Cc: Dave Kanner; Tom Anderson Subject: Re: Local Rule Hearing 13 March 2007 About rules for hearing: 1) Can a speaker relinquish floor to another speaker to speak longer 2) Will staff answer questions on the fly or only by question cards? 3) How long will county staff be allowed to speak? 4) Will charts or maps be allowed to be shown? 5) Can attorneys present suits at hearing? 6) Can testimony by attorney's about future suits be given that this vote might bring? 8) Is there any sponsorship by the commissioners of speakers so that more time for testimony can be .given to an individual speaker? 9) Do the commissioners or staff run the hearing? 10) Who sets the rules for hearing the staff or the commissioners? 11) Are the rules in writing as regulation, etc?? 12) Will recording or video devices brought by citizens be permitted? 13) Will county recordings be availible for copy? 14) Will minutes be published on website in a timely manor? 15) Will speakers be on first come first served basis or sign up in advance on computer, etc?? I am new to area (2 years) and have been involved in public policy for over 35 years in other cities, county's, state and national activities and want to understand the ground rules for your process. I have heard from neighbors that staff runs the county and the commissioners are just a rubber stamp for their wishs. This is too bad, even if it is just a perception on their part, as it may be why I notice a lack of participation in the south county folks over some issues. The "local rule" proposal is changing all that. Ed Criss (note: using my brothers computer and e-mail for now) Original Message From: Tammy Baney To: JERRY CRISS, Board Cc: Dave Kanner ; Tom Anderson Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 4:10 PM Subject: RE: Local Rule Hearing 13 March 2007 Hi Jerry- .Thank you for your email; your comments have been added to the record. I feel that it is important to point out that this is a meeting for both the Commissioners and the residents of South County. We will be limiting the reports as best we can as we want to hear from as many citizens as possible. Please know that we will be having a meeting on the 20th as well and possibly a third if necessary. 3/12/2007 Page 2 of 3 Again, thank you for sharing your concerns; they are important to me. In Partnership, Tammy Baney Deschutes County Commissioner Office: 541 388-6567 Cell: 541 419-2233 From: JERRY CRISS [mailto:tlfly44@msn.com) Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 5:01 PM To: Board Subject: Local Rule Hearing 13 March 2007 Mr. and Madam Commissioners, My name is Jerry Criss and as with my brother Ed Criss, we are full time residents of the South County. By now you probably have heard of my brother well now you are going to hear about me. If you believe my brother is a pain you have not seen anything like what I am like. I am a retired Pipefitter of 35 years and a retired Stationary Engineer of 7 years. In that time I have read technical reports and data sheets until my eyes were crossed, and understood every word and figure. I have been involved with issues that your staff even with their knowledge and education would be lost for quite a while. I have been in meetings and arbitrations with building owners, lawyers, engineers and/or contractors who cuff links are worth more this counties budget and toppled many of them. Because they either did not have their facts together and/oo they were trying to hide something and/or were lying. The BS your staff is trying sell to us stinks of something greater than just a groundwater issue, not because of the science, but because of the continued lies and/or half truths being told by your staff. You will see and hear evidence to that statement on the 13th. That is what this email is really about, as a member of a well organized group here in South County, we do not want to hear any more testimony from your staff, they have had your ears for over 4 years and now it is time to hear form us. You are going to decide whether or not to put the residents of South County into financial peril, and you need to hear from us. We are not on board with this as Ms. Morrow would have you and the EPA believe. We are not willing to sit and listen to the staff any longer, Tom Anderson wants to just use up the time with more of the same noise and we have heard enough, he says that he needs time to inform residents who might be hearing of this issue for the first time to hear their side, well if there truly was a proper public process the staff would not have that problem, this is our Hearing and our time to be heard, if you bring the staff here to be heard, I do not believe the residents of the South County are going to stay and listen. If you truly are interested in what we have to say then let the hearing do that, do not under estimate the testimony you are going hear, yes there will be many who will be emotional about how they can't afford it and how can you do this us. But some of what you hear is testimony that your staff does not want you to hear, hard evidence that they are not fully ready to implement the Local Rule and proof of some of the lies they have been telling from the beginning of their so called public process. We are educated enough to understand this issue unlike page 4-37 of the final report implies and we want to be heard and we want questions answered. If the staff wants to be heard than limit their time just like you are doing to the residents of the South County who intend on speaking, if you really want to see the staff get nervous have them ready to answer questions from the audience, not just though. notes written on a card. I know that is asking a lot but you are asking a lot of us. The questions will give you a real view of what we see as the problem, they have not convinced us there is going to be a real problem in 30 - 50 years. There are too many assumptions and the 3/12/2007 Page 3 of 3 lack of real time variables put into the Predictive Model and that does not make sense to • those of us who have been reading over the mounds of data and reports. There again is something more to this than just water quality and you are being put on notice that we will find out what it is. You know the old adage of do not bring me a problem without also bringing some solution. Well here are some possible solutions to the so called problem. This is a start of a possible Local Rule. 1 It is required that all septic systems be inspected and tested by a certified testing agency and certified to be legal under present County codes, and those results reported to the County. 2 It is required that all drinking wells be tested for nitrates by a certified testing agency and certified to be legal under present County Codes, and the results reported to the County. 3 There be a 2 year period in which these items are to be completed by all residents of the South County. 4 Any discrepancies must be rectified within one year of the Counties notice to do so. That could mean repair of or replacement of present septic systems. The redrilling of some wells to get them deeper or move them further away from a septic drain field. 5 Testing of the drinking wells for nitrates to be done again in 2 years. 6 Possible retesting of some of the test wells used in the study during the same period. Testing the septic systems accomplishes many things, it gets the faulty septic systems repaired or replaced and it takes out the possibility of faulty septic systems influencing the nitrate loading model. Testing of the actual drinking wells gets clean water into every home here in the South County and gives us a reading of the nitrate levels. Testing of the wells used in the study gets a reading of where we are since the last testing in 2004. The retesting after 2 years gives • us another reading of the nitrate levels. The best thing about this programs approach is that most of the cost to the County is administrative except for testing of the, original test wells, the actual costs of the rest of the testing is on the South County residents. I am sure they are willing to accept that responsibility. During this time, there can be a real citizens group established to work with the staff and you, to test the Optimization Model with real life variables rather than run variables that only have one outcome and if at that time the out come is that we have a real problem then we can deal with that. Plus you would have established a real citizens group who in turn would have started a real public process. At the same time the County can get more nitrate reducing systems certified and/or established that cluster systems might be a more final alternative and they will have time to get real financial help together that will be of benefit to the residents of the South County. These options are not going to be be received well by the staff because they are in a hurry to get this done before the June 30 deadline and other deadlines that we haven't found yet. But they are a way to gain time and that is something we do have, after all the nitrate problem is really not going to be an issue for at least 20 years, just quoting your staff. Thanks for your time, Jerry Criss • 3/12/2007 Page 1 of 4 Barbara Rich From: Barbara Rich Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:09 AM To: 'John Wurst' Subject: RE: Information about and on these new standards The baseline right now would be to use the Multi-Flo, EnviroGuard or AX-20. There are links to information about these systems at: http://www.co.deschutes.or.uslindex.cfm?objectld=E08F5071-92D8-AAE9-9E65EEC2D849A600 I know that the AX-20 must be installed by a person certified by the company. I don't know the licensing or certification requirements for installing the Multi-Flo/EnvirGuard systems. The distributors for the AX-20 are listed at: http://www.orenco.com/siteUtils/distributorLocator dists asp? stateName=Oregon&countyName=Deschutes&countyl D=2212 The local distributor for the MultiFlo/EnvirGuard system is La Pine Redi-Mix at 541-536-1771. Oope this helps. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Barbara J. Rich, REHS Deschutes County Env. Health 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97701 541-617-4713 FAX 541-385-1764 BarbaraR@co.deschutes.or.us www.deschutes.org/cdd/ use "Quick Links" to the Groundwater Protection Project From: John Wurst [mailto:jwurst@haines.ak.us] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 1:14 PM To: Barbara Rich Subject: RE: Information about and on these new standards 0 Barbara Thank you for your response to my questions. 3/12/2007 Page 2 of 4 The information I would like to get schooled up on is what it will take to up grade my standard system so that it will meet the base line requirements of a nitrogen reducing system. I am also interested in learning if this up grade can be made by me as an unlicensed person who is about to sale the property? • What supply houses in the community handles the equipment for a nitrogen reducing system that will meet the new standards for my area. There is little doubt that due to the large number of private septic treatment systems all lying over a shallow aquifer, it is everyone's responsibility to become part of the solution. John Wurst Lands Manager/Assessor Haines Borough Haines, Alaska From: Barbara Rich [mailto: Barba ra_Rich @co. desch utes.or. us] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 11:28 AM To: John Wurst Subject: RE: Information about and on these new standards Dear John, Your system is currently an approved system and the proposed Local Rule, if adopted, would not change the fact that the system currently on the property was installed according to the rule in effect at the time. The rule would just specify that the system would need to be upgraded to a nitrogen reducing system within 10 years. The proposed rule includes no requirement that the upgrade be completed at the time of property sale. That is a choice that can be negotiated between buyer and seller. If the rule is adopted, then performance standards for existing systems will also be established. At that point I can get you more specific information if you choose to upgrade your system prior to listing your property for sale. Let me know if that helps, • Barbara J. Rich, REHS Deschutes County Env. Health 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97701 541-617-4713 FAX 541-385-1764 BarbaraR@co.deschutes.or.us www.deschutes.org/cdd/ use "Quick Links" to the Groundwater Protection Project From: John Wurst [mailto:jwurst@haines.ak.us] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 2:57 PM To: Barbara Rich Subject: RE: Information about and on these new standards Good afternoon Barbara Thank you for sending me the links to various information sources. I followed both of these links and I could not see what makes these systems work much less what is expected of my system since it was approved May of 2005 as a standard system with a 1500 gallon tank and 225 feet of drain field using drain field media BD-2. Will you be allowed to share with me what, if any changes, this new system must have to be a lawful operating system? In reviewing the data that is being sent out, I can not determine what I must do to comply? Can I do my own work? Wil~ the work require me to purchase an additional permit? If so how much will this permit cost? I will need to address all of this so that I can effectively market the property this summer. 3/12/2007 Page 3 of 4 Thank you for your help. It will be difficult for me to come and go since I now live in a remote village in Alaska. ~hn Wurst From: Barbara Rich [mai Ito: Barba ra-Rich@co.desch utes.or. us] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 12:45 PM To: John Wurst Subject: RE: Information about and on these new standards Dear John, I've attached the Certificate of Satisfactory Completion for your property. This will provide specific information on what system and components have been installed on your property. I have also provided a link to the Groundwater Protection Project web site for your information. I recommend that you take a look at the information provided there and contact me again if/when you have additional questions. htto://www.co.deschutes.or.us/ao/obiectid/70469A86-BDBD-57C1-9CD541 E610EDEED6/index.cfm Sincerely, Barbara J. Rich, REHS Deschutes County Env. Health 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97701 541-617-4713 4WX 541-385-1764 rbaraR@co.deschutes.or.us www.deschutes.org/cdd/ use "Quick Links" to the Groundwater Protection Project From: John Wurst [mailto:jwurst@haines.ak.us] Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 7:59 AM To: Barbara Rich Subject: Information about and on these new standards Good morning Barbara My name is John Wurst and I own a property on the north end of Day Road. I now live in Haines, Alaska and will not be able to attend any public meetings. I have not information regarding these systems but I do see some need to maintain water quality while the many plated lots in my area are filling in. Will you please verify my system that was installed two years ago, I have no recall as to wheatear the tank was a 1,000 or 1500 gallon tank. I do recall that they installed 300 feet of infiltrator system for the drain field. I built a 40X60 shop with about 500 feet of living area permitted in it. My stated intention on the permits is that I will build a 2,000 to 2,400 square foot residence on the property some time in the future. I hope that this is not too much information, but I am blind as to what data is needed and for where. Thank you for your help with my questions, and I look forward to hearing from you. hn J. Wurst Box 1432 Haines, Alaska 99827 3/12/2007 Page 4 of 4 Home Phone (907) 766-2426 (evenings only) Work Phone (907) 766-2231 (daytime week days only) • • LI 3/12/2007 Page 1 of 2 Barbara Rich From: Tom Anderson Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 8:25 AM To: Todd Cleveland; Barbara Rich; Dan W Haldeman Subject: FW: LaPine "Local Rule" I talked to Todd a little bit about this this morning. If one of you could provide a brief response to me on her points that I can forward back to the Board and her I would appreciate it. My understanding from Todd is that other than O&M, there are no use limitations for the ATT systems that differ from use limitations that go along with standard or sand filter systems. Thanks, Tom From: Dave Kanner Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 8:05 AM To: Tom Anderson Subject: FW: LaPine "Local Rule" Tom - This is a new one on me. I haven't heard anything about limiting the types of cleaning products that can be used. Dave rom: Bunnytale0l@aol.com [mailto:Bunnytale0l@aol.com] Went: Sunday, March 11, 2007 4:13 PM To: Dennis Luke; mikeda@deschutes.or.us; Board Subject: LaPine "Local Rule" Hello, wanted to be able to voice my opinions and concerns, as I am sure you wont be able to address everyone at the public meeting Tues. evening. Having read many articles on this subject and attempting to be open minded, I find that I really must disagree with the end results. I owned a house cleaning business for 20 some years in the Portland area several years ago. I was very successful, and had several high dollar homes in the West hills. With that said, I know the only way to be able to sanitize toilets, sinks, tubs, showers and such is to use a bleach type of product. According to the info that I have read, you cannot use any cleaning products, or it will damage the new septic system. I personally take offense to ANYONE who dictates what cleaning products I can use or not use in my home! also take offense to anyone who dictates how many loads of laundry I can use, and the types of detergents! Just today, there has been two showers, dishes done in the dishwasher, two loads of laundry, and tonight I look forward to a long bubble bath in my oversized garden tub, which I fill up with water. If I chose to do that with the "new septic" system, I would overload the system and have to have someone " qualified" to fix it. I think there should be a more unbiased tests done as to WHO needs this system, or come up with one that is not so costly! Sounds to me the only thing you can put into this type of system is poop! and with that, you are limited on how much per day! Lets say in the deep of winter temperatures are below zero, a family has the stomach flu, 4 kids (out here there re lots of families who have more) and two adults. In a matter of 3 days, the whole family is 10h rowing up. Oops! you can't flush it down the toilet, they all have to run outside, because after all, 3/12/2007 Page 2 of 2 its not poop, its vomit, food! And according to the "rules" of what you can and cannot put in this new septic, food is not one of them. • As you recall this last fall we had a wind storm, it did enough damage in South County that everyone was without power for a period of time. I personally was without for three and a half days. Knowing we ALWAYS loose power every year, we were prepared. We had extra water to use in the toilet to be able to flush. Apparently with this new system that has to run on power, you wont be able to do that! In fact if the power goes out, your system will probably be damaged and once again the person who will be doing maintenance will need to come out. I certainly don't think that having to use electricity to run the system, annual maintenance fees, and all the other amounts of money that will have to go out just to maintain this system is cost effective! I don't even use electricity for heat! I can't afford it. Many out here are the same way. I really don't understand why you want ALL of South County to have this, and why not the whole County. Not all of us have or will have a nitrate problem. Nitrates in our well water is so low, it is non existent. My well is no where near any type of septic, and never will be. So why make ALL of us have to go deeply into depth, and financially strapped the rest of our days in South County paying way too much out of our yearly pockets, just to make a select few fill their pockets? recall back when I was a child in the valley, my parents had an old septic, I remember being so happy that we could finally tear down the outhouse! Needless to say, they did what all the neighbors did back then.... all the gray water from the old ringer washer, to the kitchen sink did not go into the septic, it went off into the yard. Can you imagine forcing people here having to do the same because they cannot "overload" the new septic? Or use certain cleaning products? I have considered that to be an option for me, and so will others! Then there will be yet another problem! Please, don't force this on us, don't dictate what we can or cannot do in our own homes! There is still time to try to come up with other options, ones that we all can be happy and be able to live with. Using electricity is NOT an option, we loose power too many times here. Not being able to use cleaning products that will help us keep our homes sanitized is NOT an option. Limiting our water • usage is NOT an option. Not being able to go on vacation for a few days without using the septic, is NOT an option. Forcing the elderly, disabled, and poverty level people to somehow pay for this, and keep paying monthly is NOT an option. Sincerely, Larona Larsell 15655 Dawn Road LaPine, Oregon P.O. Box 266 AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. C7 3/12/2007 R Page 1 of 3 Barbara Rich From: Tom Anderson Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:01 AM To: Barbara Rich Subject: FW: LAPINE WATER Demonstration project. From: Tom Anderson Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 8:47 AM To: Dave Kanner Subject: RE: LAPINE WATER Demonstration project. attached a link to their website below. It's a national based federation of organizations involved in wastewater treatment administered through Washington University in St Louis. They are funded by and closely related to EPA. One of their functions is to help focus EPA grant funding. They were invloved in the awarding of the National Demonstration Project grant to Deschutes County. http://www.ndwrcdr).orq/ (From: Dave Kanner Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 8:11 AM To: Tom Anderson Subject: FW: LAPINE WATER Demonstration project. ...and what exactly is NDWRCDP? From: Calvin McClure [mailto:cnrpro7l@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 10:33 PM To: Board Subject: LAPINE WATER Demonstration project. My method for checking this out. Internet searches (DSL) Qwest. Original Project documents on County Web Sites. Links from county web site. Relevant State and Federal agencies web sites. Other states' web sites and even some Foreign Countries Commercial web sites. 4primary concerns were health issues and cost of compliance. I just hate it when somebod Y spends a large amount of our money without at least giving us a remote chance of deciding if 3/12/2007 Page 2 of 3 A we think it is necessary and I am not anxious to die. The first thing that caught my eye was a pie chart on an Idaho Ground water survey, which • indicated that 98% of the nitrate was from industrial, agricultural and natural sources. Only 2% was attributed to domestic human waste. And that 2% included centralized treatment plants. I asked myself how is it possible that we have a problem. We have very little agriculture and almost no industry. 1 was a skeptic now but I continued to search. I searched and read for about 2 week. I visited 100s of related web sites. My thoughts now are that the health issues are pure bunk. Nitrate contamination of our ground water is at the very bottom of my health concerns. The tons of dust that are blowing around this area every summer, caused by the traffic on the hundreds of miles of unpaved roads, is on the top of that list. I am sure that the health of this community would be better served if the millions being used to study our water were being used to pave those roads. Reasons for reaching this conclusion; The people that conduced the research (NDWRCDP) are the same people that want you to buy these very expensive Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems. Did anybody expect that they were going to discover "nothing" in support their cause. • I can monitor the nitrate/nitrite levels in my well water monthly for about ten cents per test. If test results ever reach a level that raises any concern I can solve this problem for less that $300 by installing a reverse osmoses water filter that will make 50 gallons of pure nitrate/nitrite free water per day. That same system will remove bacterial, viral and a whole long list of possible water contaminants. For less than $50 I can get an osmosis filter that attaches to my sink spout, that does the same thing. Of the 100 to 200 gallons of water coming out of my well I consume less than two gallons per day. Problem solved. There hasn't been a reported case of Methemoglobinemia (Blue Baby Syndrome) in the U.S. or all of Europe for FIFTY years. European nitrate standards for water are 2 to 3 times the standard recommended in the U.S. Why? Because the USEPA uses the perceived most affected population to set the standard, infants from the age of birth to six months that are not being breast feed. Women that do not breast feed can and probably should use distilled of filtered water to prepare their infants food. Why run the risks of bacterial infections? Using NDWRCDP to run the evaluation program, establish the test criteria, make all of the assumption on parameters used, review the end results, etc. is worse than letting the fox into the chicken house, it borders on sheer stupidity. Making decisions that seriously affect the financial well being of this community based on their findings border on lunacy. Perhaps we should hav the reverse osmosis treatment industry review their findings. They could probably add another two or three thousand dollars to the treatment process. We could start a cottage industry, selling 3/12/2007 -h r~ Page 3 of 3 the now ultra purified effluent from our septic systems to the rich and famous, or the staff at it DWRCDP. They even disclaim that the USEPA has reviewed the results. Viewing the test data for the demonstration systems currently being reviewed by the County revealed some frightening problems with those systems. Even the dealer technicians could not keep them running right. Power bills that jumper as much as 100%. Alarms that would not go off until the dealer tech disabled them. Offensive smells that penetrated the users home. Repeated service and repair problems. Smells so offensive in the system maintenance ports that the people that were evaluating them were repulsed. All this while these systems was being serviced by factory reps., what happens when the user assumes responsibility. I shudder to think about it. The smell from my neighbors 3 to 4 year old sand filter is already occasionally present in my back yard during summer. The weeds on top of his sand filter are growing profusely. Is he maintaining his system properly? Not from what I have read. I am sure you see my point by now. See you at the hearing. Please reconsider the time limits. have at least 2 1/2 hours of carefully documented objections that I would Love to present. Thanks to the unknown but much appreciated superhero that moved Qwest to find a way to extend DSL all the way out to my house. I think?? Sincerely: 46 al and Reta PS Copies of this are being given to anybody that wants or will take one. • 3/12/2007 Pagel of 2 Barbara Rich .From: Tom Anderson Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 10:11 AM To: Barbara Rich Subject: FW: Local Rule From: Mike Daly Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:44 AM To: Tom Anderson Cc: Dennis Luke; Tammy Baney; Dave Kanner Subject: FW: Local Rule Tom, I am not sure you received this one. Michael M. Daly Deschutes County Commissioner 1300 NW Wall St., Ste. 200 Bend, Or. 97701 Well 41-388-6569 541-948-7591 Fax 541-385-3202 From: DAVE KAREN GILLETTE [mailto:thebladesd@msn.com] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 2:40 AM To: Tammy Baney Cc: Mike Daly Subject: Fw: Local Rule Original Message From: DAVE KAREN GILLETTE To: Dennis Luke co.deschutes.or.us Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 1:31 AM Subject: Local Rule Dear Commisioners, As a Citizen in the LaPine area I am writing to remind that the Citizens need to be heard. You have heard information from the CDD many times. At the meeting in LaPine on March 13th it is the Citizens turn to speak regarding the information we have gathered. The CDD has had plenty of time to research heir information. Many of our Citizens have worked hard to gather Data,but we need more time. We must be sure that if there is a local Rule regarding the Septic Systems that it will benefit all of us. The CDD is not considering the financial impact this will have on the Citizens of Lower Deschutes County. 3/12/2007 Page 2 of 2 Many of us will be forced to move out of this beautiful area. Is this what Deschutes County wants? You are in Office because of the Citizens. We need to be heard!! You also need to be aware that the CDD tried to sneak this by the Citizens of lower Deschutes County. They stated the information was Public knowledge. They tried to stop Public input as of December 29th,2006. The CDD implied that this Local Rule was in effect in June/July of 2006. They were called on this by a group Of Realtors and the CDD changed their story. The CDD has said they have listened to the people. When was the CDD ever concerned with what the Citizens had to say. It was implied by certain CDD staff that LaPine Citizens were "uneducated" with no concern over the water quality. How could that be true when we are the ones that live here,vote here and pay taxes here!! We want safe water,but what assurances do we have that this new sytem will work? How long is it guaranteed to work before it needs to be replaced? Are there other contaminates that could effect our water? Can this system also remove those contaminates? I request an E-Mailed answer to my questions in 10 to 14 days. My Husband and I will be attending the meeting on March 13th in LaPine. Karen Gillette • 3/12/2007 Page 1 of 1 Barbara Rich 0 From: Tom Anderson Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 10:12 AM To: Barbara Rich Subject: FW: South Deschutes County Septic Issue From: Mike Daly Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:48 AM To: Tom Anderson Subject: FW: South Deschutes County Septic Issue Michael M. Daly Deschutes County Commissioner 1300 NW Wall St., Ste. 200 Bend, Or. 97701 541-388-6569 Cell 541-948-7591 Fax 541-385-3202 I~ J From: WildRiver HOA [mailto:wildriverhoa@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 5:23 PM To: Mike Daly; Dennis Luke; Tammy Baney Subject: South Deschutes County Septic Issue To Our County Commissioners On behalf of the 189 lot owners within Wild River Owners Association we ask you to vote against the "local rule" at the meeting to be held on March 13th at the La Pine High School. We ask that the County hold off on passing anything for at least a year so that we may have a clear and open public process on this issue. We ask that a coalition be formed between the County and owners representing different areas of South County so that a local rule be formed that makes sense for all in South Deschutes County. At this meeting on the 13th the public should be allowed to ask questions and have an open dialog with the those conducting the meeting. Thank you for your consideration on this issue. The Board of Directors of Wild River Owners Association Nancy Prudhomme, Secretary 0 3/12/2007 Page 1 of 4 Barbara Rich From: Barbara Rich Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 10:31 AM To: 'John Wurst' Subject: RE: Information about and on these new standards Thank you, John. We will also be developing more financial assistance programs to help with the cost if the rule is adopted. Sincerely, Barbara J. Rich, REHS Deschutes County Env. Health 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97701 541-617-4713 FAX 541-385-1764 BarbaraR@co.deschutes.or.us www.deschutes.org/cdd/ use "Quick Links" to the Groundwater Protection Project From: John Wurst [mailto:jwurst@haines.ak.us] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 10:16 AM To: Barbara Rich Subject: RE: Information about and on these new standards Good morning Barbara This looks like good data. I will be following up on this and learn what it is I will need to do to comply with any new rules our county sets up. It is better for me to be pro active than reactive on issues such as these. I know that it will be easier for me to pay now than ten years from know when I have less income to deal with the issues with. If something new regarding these issues come up please send them my way. I hope that the county has good success with this. It truly is the best for all who are in the Deschutes River water shed to protect the land and water for ourselves and those who live down stream. John Wurst From: Barbara Rich [mailto:Barbara_Rich@co.deschutes.or.us] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 8:09 AM To: John Wurst Subject: RE: Information about and on these new standards The baseline right now would be to use the Multi-Flo, EnviroGuard or AX-20. There are links to information about these 3/12/2007 Page 2 of 4 I know that the AX-20 must be installed by a person certified by the company. I don't know the licensing or certification requirements for installing the Multi-Flo/EnvirGuard systems. • The distributors for the AX-20 are listed at: http://www.orenco.com/siteUtils/distributorLocator dists.asp? stateName=Oregon&countyName=Deschutes&countylD=2212 The local distributor for the MultiFlo/EnvirGuard system is La Pine Redi-Mix at 541-536-1771. 1 hope this helps. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Barbara J. Rich, REHS Deschutes County Env. Health 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97701 541-617-4713 FAX 541-385-1764 BarbaraR@co.deschutes.or.us www.deschutes.org/cdd/ use "Quick Links" to the Groundwater Protection Project From: John Wurst [mailto:jwurst@haines.ak.us] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 1:14 PM To: Barbara Rich Subject: RE: Information about and on these new standards Hi Barbara Thank you for your response to my questions. The information I would like to get schooled up on is what it will take to up grade my standard system so that it will meet the base line requirements of a nitrogen reducing system. I am also interested in learning if this up grade can be made by me as an unlicensed person who is about to sale the property? What supply houses in the community handles the equipment for a nitrogen reducing system that will meet the new standards for my area. There is little doubt that due to the large number of private septic treatment systems all lying over a shallow aquifer, it is everyone's responsibility to become part of the solution. John Wurst Lands Manager/Assessor Haines Borough Haines, Alaska From: Barbara Rich [mailto: Barba ra_Rich @co.desch utes.or. us] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 11:28 AM To: John Wurst • Subject: RE: Information about and on these new standards Dear John, 3/12/2007 Page 3 of 4 Your system is currently an approved system and the proposed Local Rule, if adopted, would not change the fact that the 0 stem currently on the property was installed according to the rule in effect at the time. The rule would just specify that e system would need to be upgraded to a nitrogen reducing system within 10 years. The proposed rule includes no requirement that the upgrade be completed at the time of property sale. That is a choice that can be negotiated between buyer and seller. If the rule is adopted, then performance standards for existing systems will also be established. At that point I can get you more specific information if you choose to upgrade your system prior to listing your property for sale. Let me know if that helps, Barbara J. Rich, REHS Deschutes County Env. Health 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97701 541-617-4713 FAX 541-385-1764 BarbaraR@co.deschutes.or.us www.deschutes.org/cdd/ use "Quick Links" to the Groundwater Protection Project From: John Wurst [mailto:jwurst@haines.ak.us] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 2:57 PM To: Barbara Rich qo bject: RE: Information about and on these new standards od afternoon Barbara Thank you for sending me the links to various information sources. I followed both of these links and I could not see what makes these systems work much less what is expected of my system since it was approved May of 2005 as a standard system with a 1500 gallon tank and 225 feet of drain field using drain field media BD-2. Will you be allowed to share with me what, if any changes, this new system must have to be a lawful operating system? In reviewing the data that is being sent out, I can not determine what I must do to comply? Can I do my own work? Will the work require me to purchase an additional permit? If so how much will this permit cost? I will need to address all of this so that I can effectively market the property this summer. Thank you for your help. It will be difficult for me to come and go since I now live in a remote village in Alaska. John Wurst From: Barbara Rich [mailto:Barbara_Rich@co.deschutes.or.us] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 12:45 PM To: John Wurst Subject: RE: Information about and on these new standards Dear John, I've attached the Certificate of Satisfactory Completion for your property. This will provide specific information on what system and components have been installed on your property. I have also provided a link to the Groundwater Protection Project web site for your information. I recommend that you take a look at the information provided there and contact me again if/when you have additional questions. 3/12/2007 Page 4 of 4 • Sincerely, Barbara J. Rich, REHS Deschutes County Env. Health 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97701 541-617-4713 FAX 541-385-1764 BarbaraR@co.deschutes.or.us www.deschutes.org/cdd/ use "Quick Links" to the Groundwater Protection Project From: John Wurst [mailtoJwurst@haines.ak.us] Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 7:59 AM To: Barbara Rich Subject: Information about and on these new standards Good morning Barbara My name is John Wurst and I own a property on the north end of Day Road. I now live in Haines, Alaska and will not be able to attend any public meetings. I have not information regarding these systems but I do see some need to maintain water quality while the many plated lots in my area are filling in. Will you please verify my system that was installed two years ago, I have no recall as to wheatear the tank was a 1,000 1500 gallon tank. I do recall that they installed 300 feet of infiltrator system for the drain field. I built a 40X60 shop with is about 500 feet of living area permitted in it. My stated intention on the permits is that I will build a 2,000 to 2,400 square foot residence on the property some time in the future. I hope that this is not too much information, but I am blind as to what data is needed and for where. Thank you for your help with my questions, and I look forward to hearing from you. John J. Wurst PO Box 1432 Haines, Alaska 99827 Home Phone (907) 766-2426 (evenings only) Work Phone (907) 766-2231 (daytime week days only) 3/12/2007 Pagel of 3 Barbara Rich From: Todd Cleveland Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 10:34 AM To: Barbara Rich Subject: FW: LaPine "Local Rule" From: Todd Cleveland Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 10:26 AM To: Tom Anderson Subject: FW: LaPine "Local Rule" From: Todd Cleveland Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 10:20 AM To: Tom Anderson Cc: Barbara Rich; Dan W Haldeman Subject: RE: LaPine "Local Rule" Tom, On Oregon, minimum sizing for systems is 450 gallons per day (gpd) maximum projected daily flow. This sizing is typical for up to a 4 bedroom residence and is basically designed to provide for 45 gallons per person per day use. All systems must meet this minimum sizing including the Alternative Treatment Technologies (ATT). Many of the ATT systems have been tested and certified by the testing entity to serve flows greater than that, but Oregon approvals have typically been more conservative and follow the minimum sizing requirements. Some of the ATT systems currently approved in Oregon have been certified to serve up to 600gpd or even 750gpd. Also, if an individual owner wishes to use a system greater than the minimum the system should be sized to serve the use, and these uses are considered in the design with the use of larger or additional tanks, additional treatment units and additional soil absorption area. The use of household cleaning products are recommended to be limited on all systems because of the toxic effects on bacteria and other beneficial microorganisms present. Normal cleaning products such as bleach, disinfectants and cleaners used in the small quantities needed for cleaning should not harm the onsite system because of the dilution and other interactions. Overuse of such products can harm all onsite systems because of the toxic effects to the biological system. We have tips regarding such uses including alternative cleaning products on our website and in handouts for all systems. We include a handout on anti-microbial soaps. Basically, all systems are a biological treatment system and poisoning and killing the biology will affect the treatment function of the system. The issues with power usage don't have a huge impact. Most of the affected areas don't have water when the power is out as she stated, and these systems have storage capacity built into them for such cases; for example if a pump goes out. The storage capacity allows for limited use until things can be fixed. Being gone and not using the system is a point that I don't really understand. If the system isn't being used then it will stop recirculating or no water will be discharged to the environment. I don't understand the problem. Hopefully, this clarifies this issue. Todd From: Tom Anderson 3/12/2007 Page 2 of 3 Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 8:25 AM To: Todd Cleveland; Barbara Rich; Dan W Haldeman • Subject: FW: LaPine "Local Rule" I talked to Todd a little bit about this this morning. If one of you could provide a brief response to me on her points that I can forward back to the Board and her I would appreciate it. My understanding from Todd is that other than O&M, there are no use limitations for the ATT systems that differ from use limitations that go along with standard or sand filter systems. Thanks, Tom From: Dave Kanner Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 8:05 AM To: Tom Anderson Subject: FW: LaPine "Local Rule" Tom - This is a new one on me. I haven't heard anything about limiting the types of cleaning products that can be used. Dave From: Bunnytale0l@aol.com [mailto:Bunnytale0l@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 4:13 PM To: Dennis Luke; mikeda@deschutes.or.us; Board Subject: LaPine "Local Rule" Hello, wanted to be able to voice my opinions and concerns, as I am sure you wont be able to address. everyone at the public meeting Tues. evening. Having read many articles on this subject and attempting to be open minded, I find that I really must disagree with the end results. I owned a house cleaning business for 20 some years in the Portland area several years ago. I was very successful, and had several high dollar homes in the West hills. With that said, I know the only way to be able to sanitize toilets, sinks, tubs, showers and such is to use a bleach type of product. According to the info that I have read, you cannot use any cleaning products, or it will damage the new septic system. I personally take offense to ANYONE who dictates what cleaning products I can use or not use in my home! also take offense to anyone who dictates how many loads of laundry I can use, and the types of detergents! Just today, there has been two showers, dishes done in the dishwasher, two loads of laundry, and tonight I look forward to a long bubble bath in my oversized garden tub, which I fill up with water. If I chose to do that with the "new septic" system, I would overload the system and have to have someone " qualified" to fix it. I think there should be a more unbiased tests done as to WHO needs this system, or come up with one that is not so costly! Sounds to me the only thing you can put into this type of system is poop! and with that, you are limited on how much per day! Lets say in the deep of winter temperatures are below zero, a family has the stomach flu, 4 kids (out here there are lots of families who have more) and two adults. In a matter of 3 days, the whole family is throwing up. Oops! you can't flush it down the toilet, they all have to run outside, because after all, its not poop, its vomit, food! And according to the "rules" of what you can and cannot put in this new septic, food is not one of them. As you recall this last fall we had a wind storm, it did enough damage in South County that everyone was without power for a period of time. I personally was without for three and a half • days. Knowing we ALWAYS loose power every year, we were prepared. We had extra water to use 3/12/2007 Page 3 of 3 in the toilet to be able to flush. Apparently with this new system that has to run on power, you wont e able to do that! In fact if the power goes out, your system will probably be damaged and once gain the person who will be doing maintenance will need to come out. I certainly don't think that having to use electricity to run the system, annual maintenance fees, and all the other amounts of money that will have to go out just to maintain this system is cost effective! I don't even use electricity for heat! I can't afford it. Many out here are the same way. really don't understand why you want ALL of South County to have this, and why not the whole County. Not all of us have or will have a nitrate problem. Nitrates in our well water is so low, it is non existent. My well is no where near any type of septic, and never will be. So why make ALL of us have to go deeply into depth, and financially strapped the rest of our days in South County paying way too much out of our yearly pockets, just to make a select few fill their pockets? I recall back when I was a child in the valley, my parents had an old septic, I remember being so happy that we could finally tear down the outhouse! Needless to say, they did what all the neighbors did back then.... all the gray water from the old ringer washer, to the kitchen sink did not go into the septic, it went off into the yard. Can you imagine forcing people here having to do the same because they cannot "overload" the new septic? Or use certain cleaning products? I have considered that to be an option for me, and so will others! Then there will be yet another problem! Please, don't force this on us, don't dictate what we can or cannot do in our own homes! There is still time to try to come up with other options, ones that we all can be happy and be able to live with. Using electricity is NOT an option, we loose power too many times here. Not being able to use cleaning products that will help us keep our homes sanitized is NOT an option. Limiting our water usage is NOT an option. Not being able to go on vacation for a few days without using the septic, is NOT an option. Forcing the elderly, disabled, and poverty level people to somehow pay for this, and keep paying monthly is NOT an option. Oincerely, Larona Larsell 15655 Dawn Road LaPine, Oregon P.O. Box 266 AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. • 3/12/2007 Re-examining the Link between Nitrates and "Blue- Baby" Syndrome: A Necessary First Step For Managing Ground Water Quality to Protect Public Health Dr. Allan S. Felsot, Environmental Toxicologist, WSU Perhaps a million dollars will be spent before all is said and done in implementing the Columbia Basin Ground Water Management Area (GWMA) (Tri-City Herald 1998). The GWMA is a coordinated local, state, and federal effort to manage ground water quality in Franklin, Grant, and Adams Counties. It was formed partly in reaction to the EPA proposal to designate the Columbia Plateau as a sole-source aquifer and thus bring increased federal regulation to the region. Focusing on nitrates in well water, GWMA will use the public funding for monitoring, education, and implementation of solutions to reduce contamination. Preventing nitrates from leaching to ground water is ostensibly motivated by the need to protect public health. Nitrates in drinking water have been associated with isolated cases of methemoglobinemia (MHB). Commonly known as "blue-baby" syndrome, MHB affects infants under 6 months of age. The most characteristic symptom is an ashen, bluish (cyanotic) hue to the skin and nails. • The most commonly perceived risk factor for MHB is feeding infants powdered formulas diluted with well water containing excessive levels of nitrates. The presence of well water nitrate is commonly attributed to farming practices that have used excessive amounts of synthetic fertilizers over the last thirty years. Given these perceptions, altering agronomic management practices for nitrogen use will logically result in safer water. The problem with this cause-and-effect scenario is that common perception may now be wrong, or at least so out-of-date as to put in place management practices that will fail to provide corresponding benefits in public health. Consider the following statement that appeared in a 1995 report (Nitrate and Nitrite in Drinking Water) from the National Research Council (NRC), the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences (NRC 1995). "Infection is the major contributor to methemoglobinemia from nitrate exposure; the incremental contribution of drinking water is negligible." A bombshell of a statement, indeed, but very important if the GWMA is to implement appropriate solutions for protecting ground water quality that ultimately has tangible public health benefits. The key to appropriate ground water management is buried in the NRC statement and the scientific literature behind it. Based on my review of this literature, I hypothesize that focusing solely on nitrates, as the GWMA plan now seems to do, will not benefit public health. Poorly constructed and located old wells and bacterial contamination are as much a cause of drinking water quality deterioration as are nitrates. I will develop this hypothesis further by reviewing briefly the historical linkage between nitrates and infant • MHB, the alternative perspective expounded in the NRC report, and recent ground water monitoring studies useful for guiding the way to effective management that will protect public health. is Historical Concerns about Well Water Nitrates and Public Health Nitrate is one of the few contaminants whose drinking water standard is solely derived from epidemiological studies. But the early studies, which date prior to 1950, were not broad scientific investigations. Rather, they were medical cases reported in the literature. Nevertheless, the current standard, 10 milligrams (mg) of nitrate-nitrogen (N) per liter (L) of water (or 44 mg/L of nitrate ion), was first proposed over 50 years ago, specifically to protect infants from MHB (NRC 1978). Patient case observations by H. H. Comly, a young resident doctor at the University of Iowa, were the first to link infantile MHB with the consumption of well water containing high levels of nitrates (Comly 1945). By the early 1940's, methemoglobin, an aberrant form of the blood protein hemoglobin but lacking the capabability of transporting oxygen, was well known. Methemoglobin is a normal constituent of blood, but its level is kept low by an enzyme that rapidly changes it back into normal hemoglobin. Certain drugs, including those containing nitrate and the related ion, nitrite, were recognized as causing an excessive build up of methemoglobin leading to MHB. As a result, when the hemoglobin levels are too low, the skin and nails turn cyanotic. During the late 1940's several other case reports echoed Comly's experiences (Bosch 1948, Walton 1951). An infant would be brought to an emergency room or clinic. The symptoms were usually the same as described by Comly, a bluish color perhaps with difficulty breathing or general lethargy. A normal color would return upon treatment with • methylene blue, a dye that had been known to counteract the symptoms of MHB. The infant was sent home with parental directions to not use the well water. In many cases the water was tested and found to have excessive levels of nitrate. By 1951, enough methemoglobinemia case reports had been published to put together a review (Walton 1951). Seventeen states had reported cases of water-induced infant MHB; no state reported cases when the nitrate-N concentration was less than 10 mg/L. Examination of the data gave validity to Comly's estimation that the upper limit for nitrate-N should be no higher than 10 mg/L. In 1962, the U.S. Public Health Service recommended a nitrate-N limit of 10 mg/L. In 1974, under authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA adopted the same standard (Fan 1996). Since first adoption of the nitrate standard, occasional medical case reports have linked nitrates in drinking water with infant MHB (Knotek 1964; Vigil 1965; Miller 1971; Shearer 1972; Super 1981; Johnson 1987). About 2000 cases of MHB with a mortality rate of 10% have been reported worldwide between 1945 and 1990 (Kross et al. 1992). In the U.S., however, cases reported from Minnesota, including deaths, still account for most of the reports. The NRC (1995) found no studies of nitrate-induced MHB since 1990. Water-induced MBH seems rather rare now, but a dearth of cases has been attributed primarily to a lack of reporting requirements, and secondarily to a lack of physician awareness. An Alternative Hypothesis of the Relationship between Nitrates and MHB 0 • The 1995 NRC report was a response to a request from the EPA for a review of the current basis of the drinking water standard for nitrate and to determine whether it remained protective of public health. The NRC concluded that limiting infant exposure to nitrate was a sensible public health measure, and given the current toxicological and epidemiological information, the 10 mg/L regulatory standard was adequate. However, the NRC pointed out that bacterial and viral infection, which can manifest as diarrhea, vomiting, and acidosis (abnormally low blood pH), are contributing factors to MHB, suggesting that nitrates are but one of several water quality parameters to consider. What is striking about the historical case reports of MHB associated with nitrates in water, is how often the infants were reported to have diarrhea and sometimes vomiting (Comly 1945, Bosch et al. 1950, Vigil et al. 1965, Shearer et al. 1972, Johnson et al. 1987, Knobeloch et al. 1993). The high nitrate content of water was frequently associated with unacceptable levels of coliform bacterial contamination. Even when bacterial contamination was not reported, the wells were often described as shallow, improperly sealed, dug structures. The well locations were usually near a barnyard, septic system, cesspool, or outhouse (Bosch et al. 1950, Miller 1971). Although no one disputes the hazard of high levels of nitrates to infants, numerous published cases have reported MHB in infants with diarrhea and acidosis but no exposure to water with elevated nitrate levels (Hegesh and Shiloah 1982, Bricker et al. 1983, Dagan et al. 1988, Smith et al. 1988, Lebby et al. 1993, Murray and Christie 1993, Gebara 1994, Hanukoglu and Danon 1996). Other studies, while not reporting whether • water was a source of nitrates, have recognized that MHB may be commonly associated with diarrhea and acidosis (Danish 1983, Kay et al. 1990), and sometimes urinary tract infections (Hanukoglu et al. 1983). Other contaminants in water could also lead to MHB, confounding the role of nitrates. For example, a recent case of MHB in a Wisconsin infant was attributed to elevated copper levels (Knobeloch et al. 1993). The infant was symptomatic with vomiting and diarrhea, and the well water contained 10 mg/L nitrate-N after going through a treatment process known as reverse osmosis. Why Would MHB Be Associated with Diarrhea? By the 1960's, when the nitrate drinking water standard was developed, the formation of methemoglobin and the extraordinary susceptibility of infants was well known. Biochemical studies had shown that nitrite, not nitrate, interacted with hemoglobin to produce methemoglobin. Infants were susceptible because they lacked enough of an enzyme that commonly changes the methemoglobin back to its normal, oxygen carrying form. Infants under 6 months old also carried a form of hemoglobin that could be more easily affected by nitrite than older children and adults. Because the infant stomach was not nearly as acid as an adult stomach, nitrate-transforming bacteria thrived and changed the nitrate into nitrite. In addition to formation in the stomach, nitrite is produced from nitrate in the salivary glands. Nitrate moves from the stomach into the small intestine where it is absorbed into the blood. As the blood circulates through the salivary glands, some of the nitrate is . changed to nitrite and both ions are secreted into the mouth and are then swallowed again. About 5% of the total ingested nitrate is believed to be converted to nitrite (NRC 1995). Nitrate is not changed to nitrite in the blood. • Nitrite tends to pass out of the stomach more slowly than nitrate. It can be slowly absorbed from the intestine, but significant amounts are eliminated in the feces. During infection, however, the intestinal lining becomes irritated and inflamed, causing it to be more leaky to the nitrite. One study has shown that diarrhea speeds up the passage of nitrite from the stomach into the intestine (Witter et al. 1979). Thus, it is probable that digestive tract infections allow a lot more nitrite absorption into the blood than when the intestine is healthy. Another reason that bacterial and viral infections of the digestive or urinary tract could be associated with the onset of MHB is also related to the body's ability to synthesize nitrate and nitrite (Green et al. 1981). If water nitrates are low, about 45% of the total nitrate exposure is due to this endogenous synthesis (NRC 1995). Studies in rodents have shown that bacterial infection causes an increase in nitrate and nitrite synthesis by specialized cells of the immune system (Wagner et al. 1983, Stuehr and Marletta 1985). The newly synthesized nitrite can be excreted into the blood by these cells and thus become available to bind with hemoglobin. Incidence of Bacterial and Nitrate Contamination of Ground Water The flurry of MHB case reports in the late 1940's occurred at a time when synthetic mineral nitrogen fertilizers were somewhat of a novelty. Synthetic fertilizer use did not start to increase until the end of the 1950's. Yet, the wells involved in the early MHB • cases were highly contaminated with nitrates. Ironically, as annual synthetic fertilizer use increased from about 3 metric tons in 1960 to 10 metric tons by 1980 (Puckett 1995), the number of published MHB reports related to nitrates in well water diminished. Instead, the majority of reports seemed to be making a connection between the coincidence of infant diarrhea and MHB, suggesting that bacterial contamination may be just as important to manage as nitrate content. Two recent ground water monitoring reports emphasize the widespread nature of bacterial contamination. A statewide survey of well water quality in Nebraska showed that 19% of rural wells were contaminated with greater than 10 mg/L nitrate-N, and 15% had bacterial contamination (Gosselin 1997). Wells contaminated with bacteria generally had low nitrate concentrations unless the wells were constructed of brick, concrete or tile rather than the more acceptable PVC plastic or steel. A province-wide survey in Ontario, Canada showed 14% of drinking water wells with nitrate-N above 10 mg/L and 34% with unacceptable bacterial contamination (Goss et al. 1998). Bacterial contamination decreased with increasing distance of a well from feedlots or exercise yards on livestock farms. Monitoring wells installed inside agricultural fields still had significant levels of bacterial and nitrate contamination, which was attributed to application of manure (Rudolph et al. 1998). Lessons Learned Failure to thoroughly understand the nature of a public health problem can lead to failed • attempts at management. A survey of newspaper articles indicates that growers tend to be • the scapegoats for nitrate contamination and, by association, infantile MHB. Is it unreasonable to assume that the articles may reflect the attitudes of policy makers or at least influence them? Allowing policy to myopically focus on nitrates is causing hazards to be overlooked. Bacterial contamination can lead to infection, acidosis, diarrhea, and vomiting, known risk factors for MHB in infants. Surely, very high levels of nitrates in water are not desirable and increase the risk of MHB, but simply mandating reduced nitrogen inputs is a simplistic solution to a potential public health problem. By focusing only on nitrates, and ignoring potentially widespread bacterial contamination, poor well construction and undesirable locations, the GWMA may mollify the policy makers, but ultimately do little to protect public health. Return to Table of Contents for the October 1998 issue References: Bosch, H. M., A. B. Rosenfield, R. Huston, H. R. Shipman, and F. L. Woodward. 1950. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 42:161-170. Bricker, T., L. S. Jefferson, and A. A. Mintz. 1983. J. of Pediatrics 102:161. Comly, H. H. 1945. J. Am. Medical Associ. 129:112-116. • Dagan, R., F. Zaltastein, and Gorodischer. 1988. Eur. J. Pediatr. 147:87-89. Danish, E. H. 1983. J. of Pediatrics 102:162-161. Fan, A. M., and V. E. Steinberg. 1996. Regulatory Toxicol. and Pharmacol. 23:35-43. Gebara, B. M., and M. G. Goetting. 1994. Clinical Pediatrics 370-373. Goss, M. J., D. A. J. Rudolph, D. L. Barry. 1998. J. Contaminant Hydrology 32:267-293. Gosselin, D. C., J. Headrick, R. Tremblay, X. -H Chen, and S. Summerside. 1997. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation 17:77-87. Green, L. C., K. R. De Luzuriaga, D. A. Wagner, W. Rand, N.Istfan, V. R. Young, and S. R. Tannenbaum. 1981. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78:7764-7768. Hanukoglu, A., and P. N. Danon. 1996. J. Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 23:1- 7. Hegesh, E., and J. Shiloah. 1982. Clinica Chemica Acta 125:107-115. Johnson, C. J., P. A. Bonrud, T. L. Dosch, A. W. Senger, K. A. Busch, D. C. Kilness, and M. R. Meyer. 1987. 0 J. Am. Medical Assoc. 257:2796-2797. Kay, M. A., W. O'Brien, B. Kessler, R. McVie, and E. R. B. McCabe. 1990. Pediatrics • 85:589-592. Knobeloch, L., K. Krenz, and H. Anderson. 1993. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) 42:217-219. Knotek, Z., and P. Schmidt. 1964. Pediatrics 78-83. Kross, B. C., A. Ayebo, and L. J. Fuortes. 1992. American Family Physician 46:183-188. Lebby, T., J. J. Roco, and E. L. Arcinue. 1993. Am. J. Emergency Medicine 11:471-472. Miller, L. W. 1971. J. Am. Medical Assoc. 216:1642-1643. Murray, K. F., and D. L. Christie. 1993. Journal of Pediatrics 122:90-92. National Research Council (NRC). 1995. Nitrate and nitrite in drinking water. National Academy Press, Washington D. C.63 pages. Rudolph, D. L., D. A. J. Barry, and M. J. Goss. 1998. J. Contaminant Hydrology 32:295- 311. Shearer, L. A., J. R. Goldsmith, C. Young, O. A. Kearns, and B.R. Tamplin. 1972. American Journal of Public Health 62:1180. Smith, M. A., N. Shah, J. S. Lobel, and W. Hamilton. 1988. Am.J. Pediatric • Hematology/Oncology 10:35-38. Stuehr, D. J., and M. A. Marletta. 1985. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 82:7738-7742. Super, M., H. De V. Heese, D. MacKenzie, W. S. Dempster, J.Du Plessis, and J. J. Ferreira. 1981. Water Research 15:1265-1270. Vigil, J., S. Warburton, W. S. Haynes, and L. Kaiser. 1965.Public Health Reports 80:1119-1121. Wagner, D. A., V. R. Young, and S. R. Tannenbaum. 1981. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 80:4518-4521. Walton, G. 1951. Am. J. Public Health 41:986-996. Witter, J. P., S. J. Gatley, and E. Balish. 1979. Science 204:411-413. Return to Table of Contents for the October 1998 issue 0 Mar 12 07 01:37p • Gary and Merrilee Lewis Hope Ranch, LLC 1567 SW Chandler, Suite 101 Bend, OR 97702 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Bend, OR Subject: South County Groundwater Onsite Wastewater Treatment To the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners, March 8, 2007 We appreciate the work that Deschutes County employees have performed in addressing the groundwater issues in south county. Studies have been conducted in the region since 1982 and expensive models constructed to study the effects of septic system contribution to drinking water and river water pollution. We recognize that there could be a problem with potential future contamination of the groundwater as effluent works through the soil and older systems degrade. Deschutes County has advocated an approach that limits groundwater contamination via • implementation of retrofits to existing systems and mandatory maximum nitrogen reduction systems for new septic system installations. This is an approach that, although expensive, addresses the nitrate problem in the groundwater. We're concerned that this solution only addresses the nitrate issue and doesn't specifically solve issues of bacteria or future unknown contaminants. Furthermore, implementation of the retrofits are to take place over a ten-year period. Many homeowners. we believe, will wait nine years before spending the money. If Deschutes County studies are correct, they will throughout this time, be polluting the groundwater. The draft ordinance effectively eliminates development on the so-called `red lots' that are in areas of high groundwater. Property owners in this area have lots that, when they were platted, were build-able. Owners have been paying property taxes on these properties since the 1960s. To take away the ability to build on these lots is damaging to the property owners. Specifically, we refer to the draft item C in 1314030 which reads: Locating the onsite wa.stewccter treatment sj;Vein or portion thereof on ctn adjoining parcel tinder the same ownership mery be permitted if the lots are combined or the lol line adjusted follotiving apl.)roval of ct lot line ad_ jrrstment application to the Department. Currently, the permitting process allows for effluent from one lot to be piped to a nearbv lot through the use of right-of-way easements- Item C takes away that ability. 541.317.0116 p.1 Mar 12 07 01:37p Gary and Merrilee Lewis 541.317.0116 We believe that this is a one-for-one swap of build-able property that doesn't add to the development in southern Deschutes County and it enables the land owner to use the property as it was originally intended. To that end, we propose that item C could be rewritten as follows: Locating the onsite wastewater treatment system or portion thereof on a remote parcel under the same oivnership may be permitter following .septic system approval and engineer-stamped drawings. In addition, we believe that a community-scale ATT treatment or an engineered membrane bioreactor system should be considered as a viable approach to connecting homeowners to a community treatment plant. The science supports component systems that are updateable and upgradeable. Such systems (often called cluster systems) can be employed to treat effluent from 10 homes to 1000 homes or more to a level of 5mg/L or less. There are many examples where these treatment plants have been put to use in Oregon and around the Northwest. The use of cluster systems allows the flexibility, in areas of new development, to have developers underwrite the systems and subsidize connections for low-income households. We believe this is a far better approach to a solution of the groundwater issue. In order to implement a cluster system outside of a municipality, aGoal i 1 exception is required. We would like to see the County advocate for a Goal l l exception to resolve groundwater contamination concerns in the southern portion of Deschutes County. Thank you for the opportunity to address you on this topic. Sincerely, Dan J. Cardot for Hope Ranch, LLC 480-5291,, Gait' A. wis'.. for SOC4 Inves ents LLC 4201 p.2 • • 0 Page 1 of 6 Barbara Rich .From: JON SHARON VURIK [sjmvurik@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:15 AM To: Tammy Baney; Mike Daly; Tom Anderson; Barbara Rich Subject: Re: LaPine Mtg tonight - quick synopsis of main points for you to consider (Article w research etc is below) By focusing only on nitrates, and ignoring potentially widespread bacterial contamination, poor well construction and undesirable locations, the GWMA may mollify the policy makers, but ultimately do little to protect public health Preventing nitrates from leaching to ground water is ostensibly motivated by the need to protect public health The problem with this cause-and-effect scenario is that common perception may now be wrong, or at least so out-of-date as to put in place management practices that will fail to provide corresponding benefits in public health "Infection is the major contributor to methemoglobinemia from nitrate exposure; the incremental contribution of drinking water is negligible." I hypothesize that focusing solely on nitrates, as the GWMA plan now seems to do, will not benefit public health &uggesting that nitrates are but one of several water quality parameters to consider Biochemical studies had shown that nitrite, not nitrate, interacted with hemoglobin to produce methemoglobin - Because the infant stomach was not nearly as acid as an adult stomach, nitrate-transforming bacteria thrived and changed the nitrate into nitrite. suggesting that bacterial contamination may be just as important to manage as nitrate content. Failure to thoroughly understand the nature of a public health problem can lead to failed attempts at management Allowing policy to myopically focus on nitrates is causing hazards to be overlooked I Reply I Recommend Message 6 in Discussion I Re-examining the Link between Nitrates and "Blue-Baby" Syndrome: A Necessary First Step For Managing Ground Water Quality to Protect Public Health Dr. Allan S. Felsot, Environmental Toxicologist, WSU Perhaps a million dollars will be spent before all is said and done in implementing the Columbia Basin Ground Water Management Area (GWMA) (Tri-City Herald 1998). • The GWMA is a coordinated local, state, and federal effort to manage ground water quality in Franklin, Grant, and Adams Counties. It was formed partly in reaction to the 3/13/2007 Page 2 of 6 \1. EPA proposal to designate the Columbia Plateau as a sole-source aquifer and thus • bring increased federal regulation to the region. Focusing on nitrates in well water, GWMA will use the public funding for monitoring, education, and implementation of solutions to reduce contamination. Preventing nitrates from leaching to ground water is ostensibly motivated by the need to protect public health. Nitrates in drinking water have been associated with isolated cases of methemoglobinemia (MHB). Commonly known as "blue-baby" syndrome, MHB affects infants under 6 months of age. The most characteristic symptom is an ashen, bluish (cyanotic) hue to the skin and nails. The most commonly perceived risk factor for MHB is feeding infants powdered formulas diluted with well water containing excessive levels of nitrates. The presence of well water nitrate is commonly attributed to farming practices that have used excessive amounts of synthetic fertilizers over the last thirty years. Given these perceptions, altering agronomic management practices for nitrogen use will logically result in safer water. The problem with this cause-and-effect scenario is that common perception may now be wrong, or at least so out-of-date as to put in place management practices that will fail to provide corresponding benefits in public health. Consider the following statement that appeared in a 1995 report (Nitrate and Nitrite in Drinking Water) from the National Research Council (NRC), the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences (NRC 1995). "Infection is the major contributor to methemoglobinemia from nitrate exposure; the incremental contribution of drinking water is negligible." A bombshell of a statement, indeed, but very important if the GWMA is to implement appropriate • solutions for protecting ground water quality that ultimately has tangible public health benefits. The key to appropriate ground water management is buried in the NRC statement and the scientific literature behind it. Based on my review of this literature, I hypothesize that focusing solely on nitrates, as the GWMA plan now seems to do, will not benefit public health. Poorly constructed and located old wells and bacterial contamination are as much a cause of drinking water quality deterioration as are nitrates. I will develop this hypothesis further by reviewing briefly the historical linkage between nitrates and infant MHB, the alternative perspective expounded in the NRC report, and recent ground water monitoring studies useful for guiding the way to effective management that will protect public health. Historical Concerns about Well Water Nitrates and Public Health Nitrate is one of the few contaminants whose drinking water standard is solely derived from epidemiological studies. But the early studies, which date prior to 1950, were not broad scientific investigations. Rather, they were medical cases reported in the literature. Nevertheless, the current standard, 10 milligrams (mg) of nitrate-nitrogen (N) per liter (L) of water (or 44 mg/L of nitrate ion), was first proposed over 50 years ago, specifically to protect infants from MHB (NRC 1978). Patient case observations by H. H. Comly, a young resident doctor at the University of Iowa, were the first to link infantile MHB with the consumption of well water containing high levels of nitrates (Comly 1945). By the early 1940's, methemoglobin, an aberrant form of the blood protein hemoglobin but lacking the capabability of transporting • oxygen, was well known. Methemoglobin is a normal constituent of blood, but its level is kept low by an enzyme that rapidly changes it back into normal hemoglobin. Certain 3/13/2007 Page 3 of 6 • • 0 exposure to water with elevated nitrate levels (Hegesh and Shiloah 1982, Bricker et al. drugs, including those containing nitrate and the related ion, nitrite, were recognized as causing an excessive build up of methemoglobin leading to MHB. As a result, when the hemoglobin levels are too low, the skin and nails turn cyanotic. During the late 1940's several other case reports echoed Comly's experiences (Bosch 1948, Walton 1951). An infant would be brought to an emergency room or clinic. The symptoms were usually the same as described by Comly, a bluish color perhaps with difficulty breathing or general lethargy. A normal color would return upon treatment with methylene blue, a dye that had been known to counteract the symptoms of MHB. The infant was sent home with parental directions to not use the well water. In many cases the water was tested and found to have excessive levels of nitrate. By 1951, enough methemoglobinemia case reports had been published to put together a review (Walton 1951). Seventeen states had reported cases of water-induced infant MHB; no state reported cases when the nitrate-N concentration was less than 10 mg/L. Examination of the data gave validity to Comly's estimation that the upper limit for nitrate-N should be no higher than 10 mg/L. In 1962, the U.S. Public Health Service recommended a nitrate-N limit of 10 mg/L. In 1974, under authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA adopted the same standard (Fan 1996). Since first adoption of the nitrate standard, occasional medical case reports have linked nitrates in drinking water with infant MHB (Knotek 1964; Vigil 1965; Miller 1971; Shearer 1972; Super 1981; Johnson 1987). About 2000 cases of MHB with a mortality rate of 10% have been reported worldwide between 1945 and 1990 (Kross et al. 1992). In the U.S., however, cases reported from Minnesota, including deaths, still account for most of the reports. The NRC (1995) found no studies of nitrate-induced MHB since 1990. Water-induced MBH seems rather rare now, but a dearth of cases has been attributed primarily to a lack of reporting requirements, and secondarily to a lack of physician awareness. An Alternative Hypothesis of the Relationship between Nitrates and MHB The 1995 NRC report was a response to a request from the EPA for a review of the current basis of the drinking water standard for nitrate and to determine whether it remained protective of public health. The NRC concluded that limiting infant exposure to nitrate was a sensible public health measure, and given the current toxicological and epidemiological information, the 10 mg/L regulatory standard was adequate. However, the NRC pointed out that bacterial and viral infection, which can manifest as diarrhea, vomiting, and acidosis (abnormally low blood pH), are contributing factors to MHB, suggesting that nitrates are but one of several water quality parameters to consider. What is striking about the historical case reports of MHB associated with nitrates in water, is how often the infants were reported to have diarrhea and sometimes vomiting (Comly 1945, Bosch et al. 1950, Vigil et al. 1965, Shearer et al. 1972, Johnson et al. 1987, Knobeloch et al. 1993). The high nitrate content of water was frequently associated with unacceptable levels of coliform bacterial contamination. Even when bacterial contamination was not reported, the wells were often described as shallow, improperly sealed, dug structures. The well locations were usually near a barnyard, septic system, cesspool, or outhouse (Bosch et al. 1950, Miller 1971). Although no one disputes the hazard of high levels of nitrates to infants, numerous published cases have reported MHB in infants with diarrhea and acidosis but no 1983, Dagan et al. 1988, Smith et al. 1988, Lebby et al. 1993, Murray and Christie 1993, Gebara 1994, Hanukoglu and Danon 1996). Other studies, while not reporting 3/13/2007 Page 4 of 6 whether water was a source of nitrates, have recognized that MHB may be commonly associated with diarrhea and acidosis (Danish 1983, Kay et al. 1990), and sometimes • urinary tract infections (Hanukoglu et al. 1983). Other contaminants in water could also lead to MHB, confounding the role of nitrates. For example, a recent case of MHB in a Wisconsin infant was attributed to elevated copper levels (Knobeloch et al. 1993). The infant was symptomatic with vomiting and diarrhea, and the well water contained 10 mg/L nitrate-N after going through a treatment process known as reverse osmosis. Why Would MHB Be Associated with Diarrhea? By the 1960's, when the nitrate drinking water standard was developed, the formation of methemoglobin and the extraordinary susceptibility of infants was well known. Biochemical studies had shown that nitrite, not nitrate, interacted with hemoglobin to produce methemoglobin. Infants were susceptible because they lacked enough of an enzyme that commonly changes the methemoglobin back to its normal, oxygen carrying form. Infants under 6 months old also carried a form of hemoglobin that could be more easily affected by nitrite than older children and adults. Because the infant stomach was not nearly as acid as an adult stomach, nitrate-transforming bacteria thrived and changed the nitrate into nitrite. In addition to formation in the stomach, nitrite is produced from nitrate in the salivary glands. Nitrate moves from the stomach into the small intestine where it is absorbed into the blood. As the blood circulates through the salivary glands, some of the nitrate is changed to nitrite and both ions are secreted into the mouth and are then swallowed again. About 5% of the total ingested nitrate is believed to be converted to nitrite (NRC 1995). Nitrate is not changed to nitrite in the blood. Nitrite tends to pass out of the stomach more slowly than nitrate. It can be slowly • absorbed from the intestine, but significant amounts are eliminated in the feces. During infection, however, the intestinal lining becomes irritated and inflamed, causing it to be more leaky to the nitrite. One study has shown that diarrhea speeds up the passage of nitrite from the stomach into the intestine (Witter et al. 1979). Thus, it is probable that digestive tract infections allow a lot more nitrite absorption into the blood than when the intestine is healthy. Another reason that bacterial and viral infections of the digestive or urinary tract could be associated with the onset of MHB is also related to the body's ability to synthesize nitrate and nitrite (Green et al. 1981). If water nitrates are low, about 45% of the total nitrate exposure is due to this endogenous synthesis (NRC 1995). Studies in rodents have shown that bacterial infection causes an increase in nitrate and nitrite synthesis by specialized cells of the immune system (Wagner et al. 1983, Stuehr and Marletta 1985). The newly synthesized nitrite can be excreted into the blood by these cells and thus become available to bind with hemoglobin. Incidence of Bacterial and Nitrate Contamination of Ground Water The flurry of MHB case reports in the late 1940's occurred at a time when synthetic mineral nitrogen fertilizers were somewhat of a novelty. Synthetic fertilizer use did not start to increase until the end of the 1950's. Yet, the wells involved in the early MHB cases were highly contaminated with nitrates. Ironically, as annual synthetic fertilizer use increased from about 3 metric tons in 1960 to 10 metric tons by 1980 (Puckett 1995), the number of published MHB reports related to nitrates in well water diminished. Instead, the majority of reports seemed to be making a connection between the coincidence of infant diarrhea and MHB, suggesting that bacterial • contamination may be just as important to manage as nitrate content. Two recent ground water monitoring reports emphasize the widespread nature of 3/13/2007 Page 5 of 6 bacterial contamination. A statewide survey of well water quality in Nebraska showed • that 19% of rural wells were contaminated with greater than 10 mg/L nitrate-N, and 15% had bacterial contamination (Gosselin 1997). Wells contaminated with bacteria generally had low nitrate concentrations unless the wells were constructed of brick, concrete or tile rather than the more acceptable PVC plastic or steel. A province-wide survey in Ontario, Canada showed 14% of drinking water wells with nitrate-N above 10 mg/L and 34% with unacceptable bacterial contamination (Goss et al. 1998). Bacterial contamination decreased with increasing distance of a well from feedlots or exercise yards on livestock farms. Monitoring wells installed inside agricultural fields still had significant levels of bacterial and nitrate contamination, which was attributed to application of manure (Rudolph et al. 1998). Lessons Learned Failure to thoroughly understand the nature of a public health problem can lead to failed attempts at management. A survey of newspaper articles indicates that growers tend to be the scapegoats for nitrate contamination and, by association, infantile MHB. Is it unreasonable to assume that the articles may reflect the attitudes of policy makers or at least influence them? Allowing policy to myopically focus on nitrates is causing hazards to be overlooked. Bacterial contamination can lead to infection, acidosis, diarrhea, and vomiting, known risk factors for MHB in infants. Surely, very high levels of nitrates in water are not desirable and increase the risk of MHB, but simply mandating reduced nitrogen inputs is a simplistic solution to a potential public health problem. By focusing only on nitrates, and ignoring potentially widespread bacterial contamination, poor well construction and undesirable locations, the GWMA may • mollify the policy makers, but ultimately do little to protect public health. Return to Table of Contents for the October 1998 issue References: Bosch, H. M., A. B. Rosenfield, R. Huston, H. R. Shipman, and F. L. Woodward. 1950. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 42:161-170. Bricker, T., L. S. Jefferson, and A. A. Mintz. 1983. J. of Pediatrics 102:161. Comly, H. H. 1945. J. Am. Medical Associ. 129:112-116. Dagan, R., F. Zaltastein, and Gorodischer. 1988. Eur. J. Pediatr. 147:87-89. Danish, E. H. 1983. J. of Pediatrics 102:162-161. Fan, A. M., and V. E. Steinberg. 1996. Regulatory Toxicol. and Pharmacol. 23:35-43. Gebara, B. M., and M. G. Goetting. 1994. Clinical Pediatrics 370-373. Goss, M. J., D. A. J. Rudolph, D. L. Barry. 1998. J. Contaminant Hydrology 32:267- 293. Gosselin, D. C., J. Headrick, R. Tremblay, X. -H Chen, and S. Summerside. 1997. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation 17:77-87. Green, L. C., K. R. De Luzuriaga, D. A. Wagner, W. Rand, N.Istfan, V. R. Young, and S. R. Tannenbaum.. 1981. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78:7764-7768. Hanukoglu, A., and P. N. Danon. 1996. J. Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 23:1-7. Hegesh, E., and J. Shiloah. 1982. Clinica Chemica Acta 125:107-115. Johnson, C. J., P. A. Bonrud, T. L. Dosch, A. W. Senger, K. A. Busch, D. C. Kilness, . and M. R. Meyer. 1987. J. Am. Medical Assoc. 257:2796-2797. Kay, M. A., W. O'Brien, B. Kessler, R. McVie, and E. R. B. McCabe. 1990. Pediatrics 3/13/2007 Page 6 of 6 t 85:589-592. • Knobeloch, L., K. Krenz, and H. Anderson. 1993. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) 42:217-219. Knotek, Z., and P. Schmidt. 1964. Pediatrics 78-83. Kross, B. C., A. Ayebo, and L. J. Fuortes. 1992. American Family Physician 46:183- 188. Lebby, T., J. J. Roco, and E. L. Arcinue. 1993. Am. J. Emergency Medicine 11:471- 472. Miller, L. W. 1971. J. Am. Medical Assoc. 216:1642-1643. Murray, K. F., and D. L. Christie. 1993. Journal of Pediatrics 122:90-92. National Research Council (NRC). 1995. Nitrate and nitrite in drinking water. National Academy Press, Washington D. C.63 pages. Rudolph, D. L., D. A. J. Barry, and M. J. Goss. 1998. J. Contaminant Hydrology 32:295-311. Shearer, L. A., J. R. Goldsmith, C. Young, O. A. Kearns, and B.R. Tamplin. 1972. American Journal of Public Health 62:1180. Smith, M. A., N. Shah, J. S. Lobel, and W. Hamilton. 1988. Am.J. Pediatric Hematology/Oncology 10:35-38. Stuehr, D. J., and M. A. Marletta. 1985. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 82:7738-7742. Super, M., H. De V. Heese, D. MacKenzie, W. S. Dempster, J.Du Plessis, and J. J. Ferreira. 1981. Water Research 15:1265-1270. Vigil, J., S. Warburton, W. S. Haynes, and L. Kaiser. 1965.Public Health Reports 80:1119-1121. Wagner, D. A., V. R. Young, and S. R. Tannenbaum. 1981. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA • 80:4518-4521. Walton, G. 1951. Am. J. Public Health 41:986-996. Witter, J. P., S. J. Gatley, and E. Balish. 1979. Science 204:411-413. Submitted by Dave & Karen Gillette View other groups in this categor~r To stop getting this e-mail, or change how often it arrives, go to your E-mail Settings. Need help? If you've forgotten your password, please go to Passport Member Services. For other questions or feedback, go to our Contact Us page. If you do not want to receive future e-mail from this MSN group, or if you received this message by mistake, please click the "Remove" link below. On the pre-addressed e-mail message that opens, simply click "Send". Your e-mail address will be deleted from this group's mailing list. Remove my e-mail address from PPPOA • 3/13/2007 Page 1 of 1 Barbara Rich From: Tom Anderson Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 2:14 PM To: Barbara Rich Subject: FW: SOUTH COUNTY WATER SAFETY From: Dave Kanner Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 10:31 AM To: Tom Anderson Subject: FW: SOUTH COUNTY WATER SAFETY From: AUTO PARTS MART Owner [mailto:autopartsmart@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 10:02 AM To: Board Subject: SOUTH COUNTY WATER SAFETY Robert Ray Box 1258 4(ao~ine, OR 97739 536-5306 Good Morning, As a resident of the southern part of the county I am a little concerned about the proposed change over to the new septic systems and the costs involved. Since we are all concerned with nitrate levels in the area I'm asking you to place a moratorium on the use of nitrate fertilizers on the golf courses in the south county area. Your failure to do so places us at risk. The information you have provided us shows us the dangers involved in the elevated nitrate levels and the prohibition of the use by non-agricultural entities would lower the anticipated increase in the nitrates in the coming years. What the heck we're a magnanimous bunch down here, we're concerned with anyone in the Deschutes Water Shed Area any park or golf course that has property on the river should be prohibited as well. The Les Schwab Amphitheatre, the Old Mill District grassy areas, Drake Park, Pioneer Park all within 500 yards of the river and a definite danger to all of us. Those houses in Bend along the river should also be looked at with a sharp eye to identify any nitrate contamination from there lawns. Your failure to provide for our safety concerns from an entity knowingly spreading nitrates on the surface of the ground in the south county in particular could certainly lead to a class seeking protection through litigation. • 3/13/2007 March 13, 2007 • 7t7 Orenco Systems" Incorporated Board of County Commissioners 1-800-348-9843 Deschutes County 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 SUBJECT: Response to County Public Health Department Memo, and Undated Oregon Dept. of Human Services Staff Letter Regarding South Deschutes County Groundwater Nitrate and Toxicity Concerns Dear Commissioners: I have attached a February 26, 2007 memo sent to the Commissioners and other County staff by Daniel Peddycord, County Public Health Director, and Mary Norburg, Medical Director, regarding "Groundwater Nitrates and Health Concerns." In that memo, Mr. Peddycord transmitted an undated letter signed by three staff persons in the Oregon Department of Human Services, Office of Environmental Public Health. That letter (referred to below as "the EPH staff letter"), consisted of comments on Steve Wert's December 28, 2006 letter to the County Commissioners regarding the proposed Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems. As an attachment to his letter, Mr. Wert included a White Paper that I wrote entitled "Nitrate Toxicity: Fact or Myth? Excerpts from my paper were also included in the body of his letter. The EPH staff letter erroneously attributed to me certain statements that appeared in Mr. Wert's letter (but which in fact I did not author), questioned my personal motivations, and otherwise mischaracterized my position on nitrate toxicity. I feel it is my responsibility to set the record straight in this letter. Speculation About Personal Motives Is Inappropriate EPH staff devoted nearly a full page of their letter to questioning my credibility and mischaracterizing my views based on statements that I never made. What is worse, they maligned me personally by remarking: "This individual apparently has a direct economic incentive for the position he is arguing." It is deeply disturbing to see State staff speculating about personal motivations in an official letter - this is not an appropriate role for a public health official. It is completely inappropriate and unprofessional for agency staff to publicly speculate about personal motivations in this manner. I am also disappointed that the County Health Department chose to forward a letter containing such aspersions to the County Commissioners. This incident gives the unfortunate impression that government will not objectively consider information submitted by stakeholders if, in the opinion of agency staff,.the submitter may have a personal or business "incentive." I am confident that this is not the sort of impression that either the State Department of Human Services, or the County Commissioners, would desire to foster. It is in everyone's best interests to work towards open dialog and eliminating the barriers that too often exist between the government and business sectors. Regrettably, the EPH staff letter only seems to reinforce these barriers. BOCC Public Hearing March 13, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit G Deschutes County Commissioners March 13, 2007 In closing, I would like to respond to the following statement contained in the letter from the County Health Department to the Commissioners: "We remain steadfast in our conviction that consumption of drinking water in excess of 10mg of nitrate per liter can and does have harmful effects on human health. This is well documented and not in dispute among public health professionals." That statement is demonstrably false, and suggests that Mr. Peddycord and Ms. Norburg have not familiarized themselves with the current literature on nitrate toxicity. I have included, in Attachment 3, some excerpts from the literature to demonstrate that public health experts do not consider the supposed harmful effects of drinking water nitrate to be "well-documented" at all. Although they often call for more research to be done, experts generally acknowledge that the existing evidence is "inconclusive" at best. The following statement, contained in the Southern Willamette Valley Ground Water Management Area Action Plan (December 2006, p. 12) presents a fairly accurate picture of the consensus in the public health literature: in the past ten years, toxicology and public health research has suggested that adults may develop other illnesses as a result of consuming high levels of nitrate. Scientific studies have found that in addition to methemoglobinemia, nitrate may be associated with diabetes, various forms of cancer, and adverse reproductive outcomes such as miscarriages, congenital defects, and premature birth (Ward, 2005). A limited number of studies have also found links to thyroid dysfunction, impaired immune response, decreased liver function, and respiratory infection. However, at this time, research findings are not consistent and evidence is not conclusive." [Emphasis added.] Attachment 3 also contains specific responses to assertions made about nitrate toxicity in the EPH staff letter. Thank you for you allowing me to bring these matters to your attention. Sinienco rely, JChurchill, Ph.D., Government Relations Representative Systems, Inc. 814 Airway Ave. Sutherlin, OR 97479 (800) 348-9843, ext. #432 Attachments: 1) February 26, 2007 Memo from Deschutes County Public Health Department 2) Undated staff letter, Oregon Dept. of Human Services, Environmental Public Health Office 3) Specific response to nitrate toxicity issues raised in the County Public Health Department Memo and EPH staff letter -3- AT~iOcyMENT 1 Deschutes County Health Department February 26, 2007 Dave Kanner, County Administrator Tom Anderson, Director Community Development Commissioner Dennis Luke, Commissioner Mike Daly Commissioner Tammy Baney Re: Groundwater Nitrates and Health Concerns Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the health concerns associated with groundwater nitrates in southern Deschutes County. We remain steadfast in our conviction that consumption of drinking water in excess of 10mg of nitrate per liter can and does have harmful effects on human health. This is well documented and not in dispute among public health professionals. We support the EPA's current drinking water standard and threshold of 10 milligrams of nitrate per liter of drinking water to be the upper limit of recommended human exposure. We also endorse efforts to limit and control nitrate-nitrogen accumulation in the groundwater from surface and immediate subsurface sources. Nitrate in the groundwater can and does lead to human exposure especially in areas that draw a preponderance of drinking water, untreated, from the ground water. Nitrate- nitrogen accumulation is almost always the result of human and agriculture use of the land and is exceedingly rare to be the result of natural causes. We have asked our colleagues with the State Public Health Environmental Toxicology program to comment on the letter of December 281h, 2006 from Mr. Steve Wert. We consider our colleagues knowledgeable experts related to human health associated with environmental toxicology. You will note, in their attached commentary, that that they refute many of the assertions made in the Wert letter. Respectfully, Daniel W. Peddycord RN, MPA/HA - Public Health Director Mary Norburg MD, Medical Director A rTic#m w2 Daniel Peddycord, Director Deschutes County Health Department 2577 NE Courtney Drive Bend, Oregon 97701 Dear Mr. Peddycord, Attached are comments provided by staff in the Environmental Toxicology Section and the Drinking Water Program within the Office of Environmental Public Health, Department of Human Services regarding nitrates found in Deschutes County. Please let us know if we can provide further assistance or clarify any comments in our attachment. Sincerely, Dave Stone, PhD Toxicologist Ken Kauffman, RS Environmental Health Specialist Dennis Nelson, PhD Geologist t and I am not sure where- he heard or read that CDC doesn't consider it reportable. C. We have not read the Hirondel book he cites. He understands it to say that nitrates "have been wrongly implicated" in MET. The chemistry of nitrates, nitrites and disease causation is complicated; and it is true that gut conditions and microbial flora have important roles in nitrate metabolism, but there is no question that ingested nitrate is an enormous anzl key factor in methemoglobinemia causation. D. MET and its injurious effects are not limited to infants as Wert suggests. As the county fact sheet clarifies, there are a wide range of susceptible ages and conditions in adults, children and infants. E. Wert makes much of the claim that there have been few recent fatalities attributed to MET. I don't know what his source of information is, but there are many acute MET injuries, some of which are fatal each year. There are many agents other than nitrate/nitrites including medications, CO inhalation and others, but he is wrong that MET is a rare or benign disorder. F. One should not look only at fatalities attributed to MET. Oxygen deprivation is a very serious condition, and even in subacute, nonlethal cases, there can be serious and permanent damage to the brain and neurological system. This would be especially true for fetuses, infants and children whose nervous system is rapidly developing and very susceptible to oxygen deprivation. Other less serious conditions may include diarrhea and irritability. G. The fact that we have effective ways of treating MET is no argument that we should not try to prevent it. There is always a delay between discovery and effective treatment during which lasting harm can be done. Prevention needs to be the objective. Treatment, even when effective is a failure to truly protect the susceptible. H. Wert mentions small studies in which administration of nitrate failed to produce symptoms. This is not surprising because humans and animals display a range of susceptibility. Drinking water regulations are aimed at A. Any single food item in our diet is consumed in small quantities compared to the amounts of water ingested each day. Food servings are typically a few ounces, rarely more than 4 ounces while water is consumed in amounts ranging from 8 oz. to 75 oz. per day (two to 50 times more than a typical food serving). It is unlikely that any particular food, especially one with a high nitrate content will be consumed every day or on a regular basis. For these reasons it is incorrect to equate food exposures with water exposures. Drinking water nitrates have from two to 50X as much significance as nitrate levels in any given food. B. The food nitrate chart is easily misinterpreted also by persons looking at the high-end of the nitrate ranges for each food. Generally one is exposed to foods from a variety of sources over time, so the nitrate level for a given item tends to average itself. Note that the low end of the nitrate levels for most food items is below or near the drinking water limit for nitrate, and as explained in "A" food nitrate is less significant on a daily exposure basis, because of the relatively small amount of each food consumed. C. One needs to consider that ingested and absorbed nitrates are additive, so it is very misleading to compare sources against another. The total exposure is combined, and since food nitrates are largely unavoidable, their presence makes it crucial that water levels be held to an even lower level, in order to keep the combined exposure within safe limits. Churchill concludes that "regulators" generally use nitrates as an indicator of other more important contaminants, rather than a direct source of harm. The finding of high nitrates in surface or groundwater is often recognized as an indication that industrial, agricultural, animal or human wastes are reaching the water; but it is incorrect to say that nitrates are not recognized as dangerous and harmful to humans, animals and the environment as well. Additional Comments on the Wert Letter: The Environmental Health Perspectives article that is included by Steve Wert's paper is really an advocacy piece in a peer-reviewed journal. The author, Avery is affiliated with the Hudson Institute, which cannot be considered a disinterested party. potentially dangerous sources of nitrate as a function of land use patterns. The factsheet should mention that seasonality of nitrate concentrations, and the utility of testing the water in the late summer and early spring to capture that variation. Comment on section: "How Do I Remove Nitrate From My Drinking Water?" This discuss is adequate and we appreciate the mention of the problem with the "universal treatments" of boiling water and the use of "mechanical" filters & chlorination to remove nitrate. We recommend a brief clarification of the difference and pros/cons of point-of-use vs. point-of-entry treatment - that they should base their decision on whether or not treatment is necessary on the analysis of their water. In addition, they should consult with a local treatment supplier who is familiar with the character of local groundwater to obtain a level of treatment that is consistent with their specific situation. Attachment 3 SPECIFIC RESPONSE TO NITRATE TOXICITY ISSUES RAISED IN THE COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT MEMO AND THE EPH STAFF LETTER 1. From the February 26, 2007 County Public Health Department Memo: "We remain steadfast in our conviction. that consumption of drinking water in excess of 10mg of nitrate per liter can and does have harmful effects .on human health. This is well documented arfd not in dispute among public health professionals." Response: The Public Health Department did not provide any literature references to back up this assertion. Here are some pertinent excerpts from the public health literature demonstrating that the evidence for nitrate toxicity is hardly considered "well-documented" or "not in dispute": "Examination of the literature suggests that a number of authors are starting to question the simple association between nitrate and infant methemoglobinemia." (Fewtrell, 2004.) "Nitrate has been implicated in methemoglobinemia and also a number of currently inconclusive health outcomes." (Fewtrell, op. cit., emphasis added.) "Epidemiologic evidence for increased risk for adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes in humans from exposure to nitrate in drinking water is sparse and suggestive at best." (Manassaram et al, 2006.) "Some scientists have recently suggested that the regulatory limit for nitrate is overly conservative." (Ward et al., 2005.) A search of the literature on health effects of nitrates suggests that the nitrate standard may be too low, particularly in light of the probable need for bacterial action to produce methemoglobinemia in humans." (Parsons, 1977.) "The evidence that increased intake of nitrate, nitrite, and N-nitroso compounds can lead to increased incidence of type 1 diabetes is conflicting There is no convincing evidence that the intake of nitrate in the Netherlands at present levels in drinking water leads to increased risk of diabetes mellitus type 1." (van Maanen et al., 2000.) "The subcommittee concludes that the incremental contribution of nitrate and nitrite from drinking water in the United States to total nitrate and nitrite exposure is negligible and unlikely to contribute to human cancer risk." (National Research Council, 1995.) 2. From EPH staff letter, Comment C: " there is no question that ingested nitrate is an enormous and key factor in methemoglobinemia causation." "Very few cases of methemoglobinemia are reported in the U.S." (Weyer, 2001.) "In the U.S., reports of new cases fell off steadily through the early 1950s, without any corrective action having knowingly been taken. Today, the disease has all but disappeared." (Smith, 2000.) "Given the apparently low incidence of possible water-related methemoglobinemia, the complex nature of the role of nitrates, and that of individual behavior, it is currently inappropriate to attempt to link illness rates with drinking-water nitrate levels." (Fewtrell, op. cit., emphasis added.) "Reports of infantile methemoglobinemia linked to contaminated drinking water are now virtually non-existent in the Unites States, with only two cases reported since the mid-1960s." (Avery, op. cit.) EPH staff assert that "there are many acute [methemoglobinemia] injuries, some of which are fatal each year," but they are apparently unable to back up that claim by providing supporting evidence from the literature. According to Knobeloch et al. (op. cit.), the Center for Disease Control's national death certificate database includes only six infant deaths that were attributed to methemoglobinemia in the 17 year period between 1979 and 1996. Of those six cases, only one could be definitively linked to well-water consumption. The other five cases were not reported in the literature, so details are unknown. As the EPH staff letter acknowledges, there are many agents known to cause methemoglobinemia even in the absence of any exposure to drinking water nitrate. Even in cases where drinking-water is implicated, other suspicious factors (e.g., bacterial contamination, or diarrhea indicative of bacterial or viral infection and gastroenteritis) are almost always noted. These factors are consistent with the emerging theory that methemoglobinemia associated with drinking- water may be due primarily to bacterial/viral infection rather than drinking-water nitrate. If there are "many" methemoglobinemia injuries and fatalities "each year" as claimed by EPH staff, they should have had no difficulty producing case reports to validate that claim. I suggest they start by contacting the Office of Disease Prevention and Epidemiology within their own department, to determine the incidence of methemoglobinemia in Oregon. On or about June 5, 2006, I contacted Chris Bushore, a Research Analyst in that office, whose job involves analyzing research and statistics on infant health. When I asked him for information about the incidence of blue-baby syndrome in Oregon, it was necessary to explain to him what blue-baby syndrome is because he was not familiar with it. He had to ask me whether it was a common problem nationwide. This suggests that the condition is virtually unheard of in Oregon. 4. On p. 4 of their letter, EPH staff states: "Churchill makes much of the fact that certain small studies failed to show or produce measurable [methemoglobinemia] in exposed subjects All one can say of such a study is that it failed through smallness, flawed design or faulty measurement of outcomes. There is no lack of scientific evidence that dietary nitrate harms susceptible infants, children and adults. " Response: I would point out to EPH staff that Shuval et al. (1972, cited in Parsons, op. cit.) conducted a study in which blood methemoglobin concentrations were compared between two groups of infants. The first group included 1,702 infants fed from wells with an average of 15.5 mg/L nitrate-N (1.5 times the drinking-water standard); the second group included 758 infants fed from wells with low nitrate L'hirondel J, L'hirondel J-L (2002). Nitrate and man: toxic, harmless, or beneficial? Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK: CABI Publishing. Manassaram DM, Backer LC, Moll DM (2006). "A review of nitrates in drinking water: maternal exposure and adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes." Environ Health Perspect 114 (3):320- 327. Parsons ML (1977). "Current research suggests the nitrate standard in drinking water is too low." J Environ Health 40 (3): 140-142. - Shuval HI, Gruener N, "Epidemiological and toxicological aspects of nitrates and nitrites in the environment." Am J Pub Health 62:1045 National Research Council (1995). Subcommittee on Nitrate and Nitrite in Drinking Water. Nitrate and Nitrite in Drinking Water. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. van Maanen JMS, Albering HJ,de Kok TMCM, van Breda SGJ, Curfs DMJ, Vermeer ITM, Ambergen AW, Wolffenbuttel BHR, Kleinjans JSC, Reeser HM (2000). "Does the Risk of Childhood Diabetes Mellitus Require Revision of the Guideline Values for Nitrate in Drinking Water?" Environ Health Perspect 108 (5):457-461. Ward MH, deKok TM, Levallois P, Brender J, Gulis G, Nolan BT, VanDerslice J. (2005). "Workgroup report: drinking-water nitrate and health - recent findings and research needs." Environ Health Perspect 113 (11): 1607-1614. Weyer, P (2001). "Nitrate in drinking water and human health." A review paper prepared for the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Agriculture Safety and Health Conference held in March 2001. <http://www.cheec.uiowa.edu/nitrate/health.html> (Retrieved from Web site March 13, 2007.) 5 . 'fit. • - I l Proposed Local Rule for South Deschutes County Question for the Board March 13, 2007 Public Hearing 4.` - q. ^eYS ~+..•it ~ .per J- March 13, 2007 TO: Deschutes County Commissioners Re: Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in S. Deschutes County 1) I feel strongly this should be stopped or put on hold until all studies have been completed. 2) The notices sent with tax statements are so vague, that unless you were aware of the groundwater protection rule in the future, you would not understand what it meant. As an advocate for seniors, I know most of them did not. 3) Ms. Rich has had several years to put her findings together and regardless of her opinion, we are interested and willing to become educated about this. 4) We love our community and are very interested in keeping its beauty. Allow the citizens of La Pine, in cooperation with the government, to look into the most efficient solution. We still have time. 5) People are skeptical of government and the driving force behind this, how the facts were entered or deleted, in order to reach their conclusion about the nitrates, now and in the future. z": i BOCC Public Hearing March 13, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit I South Deschutes county means the area contained in Townships 19„20, 21, and 22 and Ranges 9 10, and 11 More Information Available: The proposed be available November _ 3, upon re x2006 t or on the County's website at. www.deschutes.org/cdd/, Use uick Links".to get to then Groundwater Protection Project OfES , DESCHtiTES Ako G COUNTY COMMUN[TI' DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Project Contact: Barbara Rich 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend OR 97701 Phone: 541.-388-6575 Fax 541-385-1764 E-mail: Barbara R@co,.des_c6utes.or. us oQ a,/ y sm ices Peijb med with Pine Local Rule will ques 41 Proposed Local Rule for South Deschutes County Deschutes County Community Development Department proposes to adopt a Local Rule as a new chapter of the Deschutes County Code. This rule will require the use of onsite wastewater treatment systems that protect the drinking water source for the residents of south Deschutes County. The rule will require the use of systems that reduce nitrogen in addition to treating wastewater for bacteria and other common contaminants removed by conventional systems. The proposed rule will: 1. Require the development of bare land to use the best performing nitrogen reducing systems 2. `Require existing development to meet at least 35% nitrogen reduction based on the Nitrate Loading Management Model 3. Require all existing systems to be upgraded by January 31, 2017 We need your participation Please attend public meetings or submit written comments to Barbara Rich (contact information at left). La Pine National Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Demonstration review, appeared to be a logical approach because the installers are familiar with onsite system designs and components. The combination of businesses did not work well in practice in the demonstration project because the installers tended to focus first on their installation jobs and secondly on the maintenance needs of the systems under their care. As a result, maintenance activities tended to become a reaction to alarms or other events with the system and proactive maintenance was overlooked. Again, the lack of service records makes understanding the interplay in these situations difficult. It is unclear if the informal nature of training most service providers received contributed to an informal attitude towards maintenance. The lump sum payment received by some service providers may also have devalued the preventative service visits because the actual cost of performing service exceeded the amount collected for the initial two-year warranty for NSF certified systems (NSF, 2000) due to travel time or other factors. • Homeowner Education The La Pine Project team noted there appeared to be unwillingness among homeowners to be informed consumers when it came to onsite systems. This lack of interest was evident even when a poor choice could have deleterious effects on home life and household function. Part of this mindset may have been due to the fact that most people wanted nothing to do with their sewage. The other contributing factor may have been the pervasive lack of minimum educational standards in the installer community. Homeowners typically requested bids from installers and accepted the lowest without questioning the quality of the bid. This was not necessarily a failing of the homeowner but may indicate an opportunity for the regulatory agency or certifying institution to improve the educational and credential requirements for onsite professionals. This role can be a cornerstone in a robust customer service oriented program because the agency could provide important information on what should be included in a good bid, including basic provisions to watch for in a service provider contract and basic operating rules for a septic system The La Pine Project team believed that homeowner education was essential to the success of a long-term maintenance program. Therefore, the project team included the following steps in working with homeowners participating in the project. 1. Individual meetings. Each homeowner participating in the innovative treatment system field test program met with project staff individually for an information sharing session. Each meeting included discussion of project goals, expectations for their participation, permit conditions and the contract to be executed between the property owner and Deschutes County. In addition, project staff included information on the kinds of treatment systems they might receive and their operating requirements. 2. Written information. After the initial meeting and once participation was assured by completion of all pertinent legal agreements, the participant received a binder which included the permit, contract with the county, general O&M information, and specific information about the system they were to receive. The binder also included log sheets for noting alarms and observations, and space was provided for the service provider contract, as-built drawings and other pertinent information for their site or system. 3. Site visits. Once the system was installed, the sampling team visited the property monthly for the first year. This visit became an important point of contact with many of the property owners and a significant amount of education took place in this fashion. Because of differing work schedules, this approach did not reach all property owners. 4. Direct mailings. Occasionally, project staff sent informational mailings to the property owners. This occurred irregularly and was generated more out of need or opportunity than any planned process. For example, when the county developed a new brochure on the use of anti-bacterial products, the property owners received a copy directly by mail. Each property owner also received a midterm report to describe the system and its operation, performance data to date, and the cost of their system and monitoring wells. Many of the homeowners participating in the project were conscientious and appreciated the information and service the project provided. A number of homeowners, however, either did not understand or read the information that was provided. A common example was the use of "every flush" toilet bowl cleaners. Project staff mailed information to all the participating homeowners and advised them not to use these products because of observed operational problems in systems exposed to them. However, the sampling team observed several sites where the treatment system and, on one site, the lysimeter one foot below the drainfield discharged effluent that was distinctly blue it color. rteta lest Program Description Page 4-23 3/12/07 NITRATE REDUCTION PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR SOUTHERN DESCHUTES COUNTY Project Description Deschutes County is proposing a $30-60MM project to upgrade all existing septic systems in Southern Deschutes County. This proposal describes a viable alternative - exporting most of the gray water containing nitrates to Northern Deschutes and Crook Counties for use by the farming communities. This project includes constructing pipelines and pumping stations to collect gray wastewater from existing sewage treatment plants and local septic systems in Southern Deschutes County and transferring the gray wastewater to a storage lagoon in Northern Deschutes County to be blended in with irrigation water from the Upper Deschutes and the Wickiup Reservoir. Estimates of daily wastewater volumes range from 2 to 3 million gallons or 6 to 9 acre feet per day (365 days / yr). Other sources of surplus gray water in the future could originate from Sunriver, LaPine, Bend and other local treatment facilities. Costs Difficult to measure until a detailed feasibility study is completed. Transferring gray water by a pipeline parallel to natural gas or high voltage transmission corridors may be viable. Water transmission line would extend north of Bend. Cooperation with many governmental, utility, and environmental groups is essential during the feasibility study. Benefits • Eliminate nitrate problem in Southern Deschutes County allowing for improved drinking water. • Allow all vacant lots to be buildable, increasing property tax revenue to county and local agencies. • Expanding the marketability of affordable housing in Southern Deschutes County. • Eliminate all nitrate transfers to the Little and Upper Deschutes Rivers, reducing green vegetation stream reductions. • Allows for an increase in winter stream flow on the Upper Deschutes, reducing bank erosion and increasing fish habitat. Bend's Mirror Pond would not be a major problem area for silt buildup. Carl Janse Spring Ri er CJae&Ke-1ler regon Water Wonderland #2 BOCC Public Hearing March 13, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit 45' L. 7i2 ~ O CU r L O C O 0 2 CM c0 C O L_ 16- ~a V4 LO C° c im ea Oc~ y = r+ (D a) CO C . 4 y m _0 =3 E v M m ~ L d = . ` )o a O ~t a O E W O O E o LL d LL C 0 4- O ~ 2 N O N 'V CO a) LO 0 a) 1 ,H a) I L) L (a D (a O a) ` U O U N L L CU N O O pm C r CO m . vN 0 CD > NS . 0 > ~E U-O C-N ~ ap 0 c o 00ca Q E - c c ~ .c c C a ~ W o ) ~ E CU a c U m o L ca ° a) O CU a) =3 4 O L. CO a... _ a) ' U z O C O m L CO O CU Z O C) a) Q • Q O O i 3 a) U c) ~ L a) a) _a CL ~ O 'L i v- a) = N rn E a) fa N O O O E o M > M C O O _ a) 6 O>~CLa ' C Cm = t UM O E 0 U~ W Oo E a) a ) ~ L) 0 -W 0 O _ 0 0~oc ~YW E =r_o ~ o cN Q Q O N LL 0 L Q . ca 0 c O C) C CU 0 3: z (0 -Z 75 Q Q U ; 3 E W e =O =3iaa~~- E 4- CU C a) V- ca Q a) t CU a) c O 7 t U U a) o aa) rn °o c O O m N V L M W O z LO a) ;m N Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit IC BOCC Public Hearing March 13, 2007 C ° co) C7) r- CU cu o ai CU cl) cu CL ~ L N `o aCi a>i f° ca Q co > ocl) N Q. U O (6 _ C "O r co O rn a) co 2 N L U a O O O C O ? ca ~C a) o - rn O _ 4- L 3 T~ D a rn a~ ui OY'O o m0 p ~ o•5 ~ a) rn U ca ° 'O a) ca O O -a ' j = c c a) c°~ N °C c :5 0 u >,o E - o Ct co cn C:) (D v o m a) C C a) a) U 4- o 0 00 00 C 'N N CO 'L CL N ` a) cm -0 _ C _ -0 (D _ 0 r- CU to a) O CL > _O .O Y U N a) ~ L- CU N C 3 C +r O L> 'L U C O j O Y t"m L (D c -O O U CO ~ Q° N N 0 a)- C F. o c6 'a N 0) N C M O U ca 'C 0 -c "OCU -p()_L'>°C toOO o (a> O'a oo>' rncu L V C 'Inn a) -D a) C U Q (D p E -0 C C N-e cL -5 ° ` 'O O c`a L° O a) t a) O o a) > N (a v C co O o A O E C O E U L = C O 0-0 :E C r :E N 'C CU L (a -0 p co CM a) ° Q :3 co co C O a) uC) C m 4- O o C cm E 'a cu :E Q c- Op 0 a) -5 E -5 cn j, N o .O N co N L- co) L -C > a) 0 ` > ~ O cu c a C o N O ` O C = U o O O~ U ca a) i s N a) 2 ° ca O Q UUWQ..Q o 3 obi o O a) U p c~ C L:C C O a) o> o o C N C W a) cm a) C cc • 0 N O~ O` N p a) ~ ~N C w N Y 1 0 v Z H~ ca 3 C E.N C U 6-o = ~m-00 3 cCa2 C.ocm d O R t4 C 4- O O E O N V O o L L N N +4+ O LV W An E a) Cc O E cu d = O E 3 c m o C E ° - O M 0 0 Q ~ > 0 0 oE° E E t 0 s o" M o c ~ Z HCEY Cn C oL-p 4- 7 O C p N 3 N co ` .r 0 N " t O :L- CD O N E ai D C -a E O a) 0) (D a O O N O O_ .4- 0 c°) NE°-perc°iCoaa))E O- N O c o o -C N N o t 'V)~ N Q L L x ca o .E c: 0 c: C I- Z rn o o"° = N o ca C) U~ a) C CU p~ L O N~ L) cl) (D a) cu E (D (D L- o E ° °~-O Z~ O Ca) ` c 51 o cu N ca 0 ca N 'C) cu E° La)NCo No0) EC a)oov L-0o~ .I- E CU jr:; -C I CS r- °>~>00m~;QCoNc_°n rn 5E2E-c EcaQ=~Ncaco-0C r 4-- CD a) _ CD cu .L o C cu E E 4-- 0) O C "O O L a) a) a) 0 0 "O ca Y 0 7 L O fa 3 -0 = 4- c ~ .co -0300F0`- fa O p-c O C o - 0) Z: U C 7 a) O E a) Q ~O 0)y, O o ~ O~_ ca C ca -0 4-- 0 a) J2 2 C 0 4- ° a) O E O O N-0 N ca co m -C co a) N_a N C 70 O a+ L fa E C N 0a) C p m Q~.`:=c E 3 E E C ° N 3:0 E a)xvocn0cN~ w L U ca O _Q O cn N 'a O O a) 0 co a) a'E m a) c rn N E E c 0 c= o~ ~ r O E L im- U V L N ca L .Q to O OC:aLw°EC~a) 0 E0 ~>,cCOO~mc~OL ~~a) N 7 ca E N 4- 3 rn`a " N ca •L 0 0 o II i i o L, C L cW cCa N a-C~ 4- W o O c 3 E on. E ~'c c 0 o O U0~ca0 °M-0 >-cN~aoooOO~'x3C ~ca 'L ° 'C U N N= o O E ca co O) p o •L C O M t (D N co LA E E- .4-- Co L- c cacca E""'~ a) a) a) CU Q ca ca (D ° a) oY~~ E CD O LO o o m can) C O N 4- o ca N 4- C y'C+ C CU ~.~_Eo :3 'E NEo ~cCE~cX.°o~.0cO cn -O co m ca ( 6 U O r U O o o >c N E O E C a)`°o a) Q--r~ -r- 42- E E-0ocLa°c~ ~EooN°a°) U O~4- C o cl) C rna.E N o of *C6 0 N E2 a`) EY rn~ o ca v°i o nc ;r CU c con 3 QN oHQ = ` C_c C cc :3 0 C x 0) O a o a) 0 o °2 c a C 3 N70 O L N N o a) uJ ° a. a) a) 0 r c: c ca o aS c m c) ~ is -r -a E N coi co C CM NCa) cu oN.-C_0N~ a`)a) > m ~i o-- -0 E o C m o E -Cu 3: ° -ac o ~0 c•=E 0 CU :3 (n c)~ocUn°'QcCa ~~3°0)aoi'°'~a~i o CC CL C-) - 0) )EoO5-°(Docu E°`mc- (D 0 3: C) 2 ca co 0) o ~aa)iaa)a °(D aa) LL > 0 0 0) -420- N 5- ca E 2 4_ E ca V a)-6 .S ca cu O c m i Z=Z 1 Deschutes County Health Department 777 February 26, 2007 Dave Kanner, County Administrator Tom Anderson, Director Community Development Commissioner Dennis Luke, Commissioner Mike Daly Commissioner Tammy Baney Re: Groundwater Nitrates and Health Concerns Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the health concerns associated with groundwater nitrates in southern Deschutes County. We remain steadfast in our conviction that consumption of drinking water in excess of l Omg of nitrate per liter can and does have harmful effects on human health. This is well documented and not in dispute among public health professionals. We support the EPA's current drinking water standard and threshold of 10 milligrams of nitrate per liter of drinking water to be the upper limit of recommended human exposure. We also endorse efforts to limit and control nitrate-nitrogen accumulation in the groundwater from surface and immediate subsurface sources. Nitrate in the groundwater can and does lead to human exposure especially in areas that draw a preponderance of drinking water, untreated, from the ground water. Nitrate- nitrogen accumulation is almost always the result of human and agriculture use of the land and is exceedingly rare to be the result of natural causes. We have asked our colleagues with the State Public Health Environmental Toxicology program to comment on the letter of December 28th, 2006 from Mr. Steve Wert. We consider our colleagues knowledgeable experts related to human health associated with environmental toxicology. You will note, in their attached commentary, that that they refute many of the assertions made in the Wert letter. Respectfully, Daniel W. Peddycord RN, MPA/HA - Public Health Director Mary Norburg MD, Medical Director BOCC Public Hearing March 13, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit & Daniel Peddycord, Director Deschutes County Health Department 2577 NE Courtney Drive Bend, Oregon 97701 Dear Mr. Peddycord, Attached are comments provided by staff in the Environmental Toxicology Section and the Drinking Water Program within the Office of Environmental Public Health, Department of Human Services regarding nitrates found in Deschutes County. Please let us know if we can provide further assistance or clarify any comments in our attachment. Sincerely, Dave Stone, PhD Toxicologist Ken Kauffman, RS Environmental Health Specialist Dennis Nelson, PhD Geologist Technical Comments: The Steve Wert letter, for the most part argues that there are ways that onsite systems and innovative design and technologies could continue to be used effectively without restricting development and growth. Most of his arguments need to be answered by land use planners, building officials and DEQ onsite folks rather than us because they aren't direct public health matters. He plainly states that his interest and drive is for continued land development from which he profits directly and from which his clients would profit. General comment 1: This is an argumentation about fairness of the county's regulations toward individual property owners. General comment 2: This is argumentation about the validity of USGS modeling work done for the county in support of their regulatory plan. General comment 3: In this section, Wert argues that nitrates aren't really a threat to health. He is clearly out of his field of expertise. Specific comments related to the health issue are detailed below: A. It appears that Wert's own reading of some of the literature leads him to conclude that ingested nitrates do not cause harm. His search is apparently very small and focuses only on a couple of articles that he believes supports his opinion. He also does not understand fully what the articles he cites are really saying. In particular, the Knobeloch et al. (2000) article he cites and attaches, actually concludes that families on private wells should test their water at least annually and avoid drinking water that has more than 10 mg of nitrate nitrogen per liter. B. Wert states that CDC "no longer considers methemoglobinemia a reportable disease." He apparently takes this to mean that CDC does not consider the condition to be harmful. He is surely wrong about that. Disease reporting laws and rules are traditionally for states to determine, and I am not sure where he heard or read that CDC doesn't consider it reportable. C. We have not read the Hirondel book he cites. He understands it to say that nitrates "have been wrongly implicated" in MET. The chemistry of nitrates, nitrites and disease causation is complicated; and it is true that gut conditions and microbial flora have important roles in nitrate metabolism, but there is no question that ingested nitrate is an enormous and key factor in methemoglobinemia causation. D. MET and its injurious effects are not limited to infants as Wert suggests. As the county fact sheet clarifies, there are a wide range of susceptible ages and conditions in adults, children and infants. E. Wert makes much of the claim that there have been few recent fatalities attributed to MET. I don't know what his source of information is, but there are many acute MET injuries, some of which are fatal each year. There are many agents other than nitrate/nitrites including medications, CO inhalation and others, but he is wrong that MET is a rare or benign disorder. F. One should not look only at fatalities attributed to MET. Oxygen deprivation is a very serious condition, and even in subacute, nonlethal cases, there can be serious and permanent damage to the brain and neurological system. This would be especially true for fetuses, infants and children whose nervous system is rapidly developing and very susceptible to oxygen deprivation. Other less serious conditions may include diarrhea and irritability. G. The fact that we have effective ways of treating MET is no argument that we should not try to prevent it. There is always a delay between discovery and effective treatment during which lasting harm can be done. Prevention needs to be the objective. Treatment, even when effective is a failure to truly protect the susceptible. H. Wert mentions small studies in which administration of nitrate failed to produce symptoms. This is not surprising because humans and animals display a range of susceptibility. Drinking water regulations are aimed at protecting the most susceptible, who are harmed at exposure levels below those that most healthy individuals would not show demonstrable harm. I. Wert's claim that he can find no "clinical" evidence that nitrates are harmful and his claim that nitrogen is essential for life show a profound lack of understanding or a deliberate distortion of difference in physiological forms and processes involving nitrogen utilization in the body. J. Wert inconsistently argues against the validity or need for a duly processed, long-standing national drinking water standard when a large part of his other arguments are that we need to abide by uniform, accepted standards. If uniform standards are optimal for land use, onsite sewage, etc., then why is this not valid for public health? In items 4 and 5, Wert returns to arguments based on his ideas about equity and how government should operate. The second document for comment is excerpts from Jason Churchill. His summary shows a better understanding of the role of nitrate in MET causation, but he makes some serious errors and draws the erroneous conclusion that "nitrates are not harmful." This individual apparently has a direct economic incentive for the position he is arguing. Churchill makes much of the fact that certain small studies failed to show or produce measurable MET in exposed subjects. In light of the complexity of nitrate/nitrite metabolism, and the wide range of human and animal susceptibilities it is not surprising that one can fail to document harm or illness in a given study design. All one can say of such a study is that it failed through smallness, flawed design or faulty measurement of outcomes. There is no lack of scientific evidence that dietary nitrate harms susceptible infants, children and adults. Churchill includes in his article a listing of common vegetable foods that can contain very significant levels of nitrate. He states that these levels known to be in food prove that "nitrates are not harmful." He apparently fails to understand several important principles: A. Any single food item in our diet is consumed in small quantities compared to the amounts of water ingested each day. Food servings are typically a few ounces, rarely more than 4 ounces while water is consumed in amounts ranging from 8 oz. to 75 oz. per day (two to 50 times more than a typical food serving). It is unlikely that any particular food, especially one with a high nitrate content will be consumed every day or on a regular basis. For these reasons it is incorrect to equate food exposures with water exposures. Drinking water nitrates have from two to 50X as much significance as nitrate levels in any given food. B. The food nitrate chart is easily misinterpreted also by persons looking at the high-end of the nitrate ranges for each food. Generally one is exposed to foods from a variety of sources over time, so the nitrate level for a given item tends to average itself. Note that the low end of the nitrate levels for most food items is below or near the drinking water limit for nitrate, and as explained in "A" food nitrate is less significant on a daily exposure basis, because of the relatively small amount of each food consumed. C. One needs to consider that ingested and absorbed nitrates are additive, so it is very misleading to compare sources against another. The total exposure is combined, and since food nitrates are largely unavoidable, their presence makes it crucial that water levels be held to an even lower level, in order to keep the combined exposure within safe limits. Churchill concludes that "regulators" generally use nitrates as an indicator of other more important contaminants, rather than a direct source of harm. The finding of high nitrates in surface or groundwater is often recognized as an indication that industrial, agricultural, animal or human wastes are reaching the water; but it is incorrect to say that nitrates are not recognized as dangerous and harmful to humans, animals and the environment as well. Additional Comments on the Wert Letter: The Environmental Health Perspectives article that is included by Steve Wert's paper is really an advocacy piece in a peer-reviewed journal. The author, Avery is affiliated with the Hudson Institute, which cannot be considered a disinterested party. While the reported cases of methemoglobinemia linked to water are infrequent, this is probably related to much successful public health intervention and improvements in sanitation and general nutrition. There are other possible health outcomes (beyond blue-baby) that may be linked to nitrates in drinking water: increased rates of bladder & ovarian cancer in women, potential congenital malformations and miscarriages, uncertain association with type I diabetes, and hypotension as a result of decreased venous pressure. With respect to Wert's comment that the USGS groundwater model was not reviewed or validated by a disinterested third party, it is important to understand that USGS did not develop this model in isolation. Other hydrogeologists, including staff from the Oregon Water Resources Department and from DHS, were involved to various extents during the development of the model. Also, the survey has a very extensive peer review process within their agency, involving review by scientists from other regional offices. We are aware of the survey staff involved in developing the model and are well aware of the process and data collection that the survey goes through in putting together such efforts. They a history of very careful work. We have no doubt that the model prepared by the survey is representative of the area of concern. DCHD Fact sheet: The "Health Effects" fact sheet developed by the county is well done and accurate. Specific comments include: Comment on section: "What is Nitrate and Where Does it Come From?" There is too much emphasis on nitrate being a naturally occurring substance in groundwater. In fact, there are only a few geological environments that contribute nitrate directly to the groundwater. Most of the time, the presence of nitrate-nitrogen, at any concentration, and particularly above 1.0 mg1L, indicates a pathway from the surface3 or immediate subsurface to the aquifer. It follows, therefore, that the more sensitive is the aquifer (e.g. shallow and unconfined), the more susceptible the groundwater is to influence from land use practices. The fact sheet does correctly point out the potentially dangerous sources of nitrate as a function of land use patterns. The fact sheet should mention that seasonality of nitrate concentrations, and the utility of testing the water in the late summer and early spring to capture that variation. Comment on section: "How Do I Remove Nitrate from My Drinking Water?" This discuss is adequate and we appreciate the mention of the problem with the "universal treatments" of boiling water and the use of "mechanical" filters & chlorination to remove nitrate. We recommend a brief clarification of the difference and pros/cons of point-of-use vs. point-of-entry treatment - that they should base their decision on whether or not treatment is necessary on the analysis of their water. In addition, they should consult with a local treatment supplier who is familiar with the character of local groundwater to obtain a level of treatment that is consistent with their specific situation. AL_ L4NK_ e;ar-~sr -sa. ae.ra...r ~ e-4 ~ V^ a ~►2 A d c~ ~-e sS 12 !S yy_e HAk Q )j 61 tJS S BOCC Public Hearing March 13, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit R Proposed Local Rule for South Deschutes County Question for the Board March 13, 2007 Public Hearing BOCC Public Hearing March 13, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit Imo"` w. BOCC Public Hearing March 13, 2007 Groundwater sues - La Pine Exhibit BOCC Public Hearing March 13, 2007 Groundwat r Issues - La Pine Exhibit _ SM 'Jegnbe W PaPPe e7siilu enpelmunC) 9 c E o I 8 $ [7 0 jean ied suol •iaimbe q PaPPe eyeplu Ienuuy U W CO 2 9 co CO W U' Q' M co 1- U W CO Z F- N co W Ir D co II c as W LL 'O C eo O Y C O H w O. O CO) c O Z °o LU w CL z U o J _J z Z O z w z O U L. f+ 10 'O c O O 0 10 t CO) O Z c d 0 W Y C V CL C! co 0 y O E O a c O 0 w a z CO) o ~ r J _J z z w Z O U w a z co o r J _J Z r H z w U O U a • 4 11W aid NI 'N4l 1J1130 N o a IIW N3d NI 'NSL V.L130 LO o ° IN a3d NI 'NSL 1/1130 • • • • ° w • a z a ° c7 CD E es • z O 3 W ca r Z CL CD D 11W aid NI ML V1130 c v Z f o • co 7, K 0 d1 ` O FA O < g z 3 W u zJ ~ Z • • o a E f.. ~ a rj) W C9 co i4 s~ O ` ® r7, av- VYW ® 7 l ~ J W 1 ® o a r P-71 - 4p 1 U Po 4 60 p< • 0 • Z N LL O <o LO °o c 0 0 0 o ZO'0 o 0 H31112I3d N SW"01111W NI m m O N Co. O O r N 'V J aj i WN i1 Zi CJ t=! N >N tD H JZ t at NN 8 i 11 Ile Diem I I E ~ E E w m E r. e e K I ~ E E ~ e 4 e d E n ~ E e . i . m I BG . pPO 1 /lf ia Id 0 g g N ^Aep/B4'BuIPeoIMWY.N J I E ~ E E co mI m n ~ ~ ~ E I E „ N I N a .r E Q o _ a of j E G s NI . 0 ..f: m 3 g R ° g iajlnbe ui elw.u ►o suoj.